Talk:Drama

Academic literature

If any of you have access to MIT press or informaworld you can easily source material to improve this article. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/action/showPreferences and http://www.informaworld.com Performatics (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Originating culture: Greece?

Greece presumably provides the earliest examples of "drama", but is there evidence that all other dramatic traditions emanate from it? If not, it can hardly be said that Greece is the "originating culture" of drama. Surely the introductory section is too Eurocentric. Western drama is defined as the norm (and someone actually has the audacity to single out two dramatic works as supreme examplars) and other dramatic traditions are in there "on suffrance". Either rewrite the article as an article on drama in general, or retitle it "Western drama" and put in a note and links to "analagous traditions in other cultures".

This page ([1]) notes that "There is no tradition of tragedy in India, and Kalidasa's plays always have happy endings. In Hinduism, everyone has an infinite number of chances to achieve enlightenment and liberation from the wheel of rebirth. A life that ends badly is only a prologue to another opportunity. Hence the basic premises on which tragedy is based are lacking." If this is the case, then the assumption that drama is divided into "comedy" and "tragedy" in the lead section seems to be a culturally based assumption.

Frankly, the whole lead stinks.

203.194.119.46 (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your reasoning is seriously flawed on several points there. The main point that you should try to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. That means that it provides no origianal research. It reports on what aleady established knowledge says. Hence the importance of citations from reliable, third-party sources. You will note that much of the article, especially the introduction, are fully-sourced in that regard. Yes, all of the evidence says that drama originates in classical Greece. That's what the sources say, and that's what the article reflects. India's dramatic traditions arise when that culture--Athenian tragedy and comedy--is extended by Alexander to India. You need to read the introduction a little more carefully. It states facts and gives the evidence for them. It doesn't say that all drama is divided into either comedy or tragedy - your argument concerning Kalidasa's plays is illogical. It describes specific historical traditions (such as that arising from the Poetics). It indicates quite clearly that there are other generic distinctions (the narrow use of "drama" itself, for example). And yes, Hamlet and Oedipus are generally regarded as pinacles of achievment in the dramatic literature of the world. Shakespeare remains the most-performed playwright on the planet. The whole lead is exemplary of the highest standards on Wikipedia. Your beef is with Theatre Studies as an academic field, not with this article, which merely reflects the conclusions of that field. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's well sourced but sorry, it's still a crappy lead. I read the introduction and it was just a string of sentences. Stringing together ten sentences, even if each is cited and each is individually true, doesn't automatically result in a coherent or truthful text. If the article wants to say that drama originated in Greece, was carried to India (although the section on Indian drama doesn't seem to imply that), and was then -- presumably -- carried to China and Japan, then it should say that. As it is, the article says that (1) drama originated in Greece (2) Noh "developed in the 14th and 15th centuries and has its own musical instruments and performance techniques, which were often handed down from father to son." There is a big implication here, that Noh drama ultimately originated from Greek drama, and a decent article would spell that out -- or desist from making such claims. (You will note that the info box says: "Originating culture:Classical Greece, Originating era; 5th century BC" whereas the body of the article says "Western drama originates in classical Greece." This kind of disharmony in the article is exactly the problem I'm talking about.)

As for Oedipus Rex and Hamlet, yes, Fergusson said that, but it is a value judgement nonetheless, and I would question that this kind of "information" is the most suitable for inclusion within the limited space of a lead.

203.194.119.46 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The introduction is of an exceptionally high quality for wikipedia and is comparable to entries in similar encyclopaedias and dictionaries of critical terms. What, precisely, isn't "truthful" in it? Where, exactly, does it lack coherence? I notice, too, that you ignore completely the central point I made in response to your first diatribe: namely, that Wikipedia reports on the current state of scholarship in a particular field. You want a source that says that drama orignates in classical Greece? Easily enough provided. Consult pretty much any textbook on drama. That endeavour will confirm, while you're at it, that the evaluation of Hamlet and Oedipus is widely-held. And reporting on that is the task of a Wikipedia article. It's not a platform for eccentric and ill-informed rants. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You want a source that says that drama orignates in classical Greece? Provide me with a source that Japanese Noh traces right back to classical Greece. If you can, I'll respectfully shut up. If you can't, then the statement that "drama" originated in classical Greece is obviously incorrect, and shouldn't be in the article (or else Noh shouldn't be in the article). The only reason you're sore is because a lot of the stuff in the introduction was written by you and you don't like other people criticising it. Incidentally, I checked Britannica (on line) and there wasn't an article. The first article in the list of links provided was "theatre (art)", and clicking through led to this: "Live performance of dramatic actions in order to tell a story or create a spectacle. ... The word derives from the Greek theatron (“place of seeing”). Theatre is one of the oldest and most important art forms in cultures worldwide. While the script is the basic element of theatrical performance, it also relies in varying degrees on acting, singing, and dancing, as well as on technical aspects of production (see stagecraft). Theatre is thought to have had its earliest origins in religious ritual; it often enacts myths or stories central to the belief structure ...". This certainly seems a lot less parochial than this Wikipedia article. 203.169.48.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I recommend a little less typing and a little more thinking. That may provide the opportunity for you to resolve your obvious confusions. The statements in the article are sourced. It is not my job, nor anyone else's, to provide you with citations that support imaginary statements. And as I made quite clear in my two previous postings, the reason I am "sore" is that despite the fact that the statements accurately reflect current scholarship in the field of Theatre Studies, you dismiss them without any further evidence than your ill-informed sense of how it should be. Quite what the reasoning behind your citation of the Theatre (art) article is eludes me. Where, exactly, do you think that you see a contradiction? Note the etymology of "theatre". Theatre may have developed out of religious ritual--it may also have developed out of story-telling. But theatre is no more religious ritual than opera is Athenian tragedy; it originates from the moment when theatre was invented. Drama was invented in classical Greece. I don't see how your quotation of the relationship between drama and theatre helps your "argument" in any way; on the contrary, it provides evidence against it--that theatre involves more than drama indicates that they have distinct genealogies. There is nothing "parochial" about this article. It reflects current scholarship. I suggest you begin to acquaint yourself with some. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed out problems with the article and large parts of what you say do not address these problems at all. Statements like "The whole lead is exemplary of the highest standards on Wikipedia", "The introduction is of an exceptionally high quality for wikipedia and is comparable to entries in similar encyclopaedias and dictionaries of critical terms" are simply your opinion. Statements like "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about", "eccentric and ill-informed rants", "I recommend a little less typing and a little more thinking", etc. only demonstrate your self-perceived superiority to anyone who dares comment on what appears to be a pet article.

My point is quite simply that the lead of the article is written from the point of Western theatre (presumably the tradition that is represented in your "Theatre Studies" textbooks) and doesn't appear to take proper account of the sections on other dramatic traditions found in the article. The info box states that drama originated in Greece, which is a blanket statement covering the entire field and should be true for the entire contents of the article. And yet there are sections on Indian drama and Japanese drama that don't appear to fit in with this characterisation. This may be, as you say, a problem with the field of Western "Theatre Studies" -- I don't really care. What I am pointing out is that this is a problem with the way the article is currently written.

You note that "It doesn't say that all drama is divided into either comedy or tragedy". No, it doesn't. But the second paragraph starts out: "The two masks associated with drama represent the traditional generic division between comedy and tragedy." In fact, this is almost a piece of trivia that could be included below the masks themselves. But since it comes very near the start of the article, it suggests that both the masks and the tragedy-comedy distinction are fundamental to drama. This is a rather Western-centric view that could be easily remedied by changing the sentence to something like "The two masks associated with the Western dramatic tradition represent the generic division between comedy and tragedy" or "The two masks associated with drama represent the traditional generic division between comedy and tragedy in the Western tradition". (This may need some fine-tuning -- I'm sure the tragedy-comedy division is now pretty universally accepted because of the spread of Western traditions, but I do think it needs to be clarified exactly where this little section is coming from, and it's certainly not a universalistic viewpoint that would accommodate other traditions touched on in the article.)

My beef is thus with the article as it stands -- which seems to be a result of Westerners writing an article from the point of view of Western tradition and modern Theatre Studies, without properly dealing with the existence of other material in the article that doesn't seem to fit in with the lead. I quoted the Britannica article to demonstrate that other encyclopaedias (you brought them up first) don't approach either drama or the theatre from a purely Western viewpoint as this article does. To be frank, I'm a total outsider on theatre studies, but I do not believe that disqualifies me from commenting on how the article is written. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You have not complained about the way in which the article is written, but rather about its contents. In order for you to understand the comparison with other, similar articles that I made, you would have to take the time to read them, which you haven't. You've quoted, in a way that failed to support your argument in any discernable way, from an article on a different subject--namely, "Theatre." I am more than happy for others to contribute to the article, provided their contributions conform to the aims and standards that Wikipedia sets for itself. Your suggestions for changes to date do not conform to those standards. I point out too that what you perceive as my "rants" came at a late point in the exchanges. I took the time to explain to you where and how you were mistaken. Rather than go check that for yourself, you responded with "it's still a crappy lead". It's only possible to say that when one isn't familiar with the field of knowledge in question--that is, it is an ignorant response. Your suggestions that the field of theatre studies is eurocentric is absurd and, again, demonstrates your lack of familiarity. Take a look at Banham and Brockett and Hildy, for example. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, you need to familiarise yourself with the field of knowledge that it addresses. Your complaints about what you imagine to be the biases of the field arer glossed as one against how the article is written, but they are not--the section about which you are complaining is fully sourced from a wide range of reputable, third-party sources. Those are the criteria the Wikipedia sets. If you want to argue with the academic field, I suggest you compose an academic article and submit it to a reputable journal. Then, and only then, would we be able to include your opinions in the article, because they would have been peer-reviewed and considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. Wikipedia is not a blog. I've already indicated to you the genealogical origins of Indian drama in the Hellenistic period. You can go check that for yourself if you wish. Even on the basis of the information that this article already provides, you are able to see that Athenian drama developed two millenia before the Japanese examples. And with regard to your complaints about the information on the meaning of the masks: firstly, it predates my own edits; secondly, it is there because a previous editor felt that this might be information for which a casual browswer of the encyclopaedia may be looking, and I think that is a reasonable assumption; thirdy, it, like drama as a whole, originates in classical Athens, but is a symbol that signifies drama throughout the world, just as Shakespeare and Sophocles are performed all over the planet and belong to world literature. You are welcome to comment on the content of the article, but, for your comments to be incorporated into its form, you are under the obligation to inform yourself about those contents. Dismissals of the academic field in lieu familiarising yourself with it remain ignorant rants. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already indicated to you the genealogical origins of Indian drama in the Hellenistic period. You can go check that for yourself if you wish. Even on the basis of the information that this article already provides, you are able to see that Athenian drama developed two millenia before the Japanese examples. Do you need to be told that "genealogy" and "chronology" are two different things, or is this another of those minor matters that don't concern "experts" in the field? 203.169.48.225 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to add any information that you feel is relevant to the article, provided you give a reliable, third-party source for it. Feel free to demonstrate the veracity of your claims with evidence. That's how Wikipedia works. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In defence of a "Greek origin", you state: "India's dramatic traditions arise when that culture--Athenian tragedy and comedy--is extended by Alexander to India".

The section on Indian drama states: "Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC".

Yet your sole response to my pointing out this problem -- and this is the kind of issue I was raising -- is that I "don't know what I'm talking about", that my "reasoning is flawed", that "the introduction is of an exceptionally high quality for wikipedia", etc., etc. I don't need to be a critic of either "theatre" or "drama" to see that there is a problem here. But you apparently don't. I don't have much to add except to quote back to you your own dismissive comment: "I recommend a little less typing and a little more thinking". 203.169.48.225 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Now, try again. Remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia. The only way to be sure of accurate information is to check the sources cited. Notice that the claim in Indian drama section isn't sourced. See? Read it carefully, too. It's not saying that Indian drama originates then. It's saying that the drama took stories from the "dramatic episodes" in that epic; much like the Athenian tragedians dramatised episodes from Homer and others. As suggested above, both Banham (a British book) and Brockett and Hildy (an American one) give comprehensive coverage of the history of world drama. If you want to improve the article, rather than merely rant, they'd be one possible place to start. I'm sure that the article would benefit from your interest and care. There, you will find, for example, that "Sanskrit drama and theatre came into being and flourished during this relatively peaceful period between the 1st and 10th centuries AD" (Banham 1998, 516). "Most agree that the earliest fragments date from approximately 100 CE" (Brockett and Hildy 2003, 615). You see how easy that is. Now, you rephrase in your own words without changing any of the facts, and hey presto, the article is improved. That's how it works. Try it. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say "that the drama took stories from the "dramatic episodes" in that epic". It says "Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda". Also, read carefully. I didn't say I agreed with the statement in the Indian section. In fact, from what I understand, nothing survives from the Rig Veda period to indicate whether India had "drama" or not. My point is that there appears to be a mismatch between the lead and the contents. The lead appears to take Greek drama as the "norm", and that Eastern traditions that suddenly pop up in the body of the article are not properly taken account of. If I ever manage to get hold of Banham or Brockett and Hildy, I'll be sure to read them carefully and make some contributions to the article. But since you appear to be very knowledgeable about drama and its history, it would be nice if I could go to the Wikipedia article and find these things out, instead of going to the great trouble and expense of having books delivered thousands of kilometres from the UK or the US. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, a book published in 1949 seems to be rather dated as a source in support of the statement that Hamlet and Oedipus Rex are the two greatest dramas ever written. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I rephrased the quotation in order to make its meaning clear to you. You claimed that the sentence in the Indian drama section contradicts those in the lead. It doesn't. It identifies the source of the stories. There's no mismatch, merely misreading and misunderstanding. And it's no use whining about the expense of delivery. Poor you. You don't have access to a library? You're incapable of accessing google books? DionysosProteus (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It says that Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rig Veda". The phrasing isn't very clear but it certainly doesn't "identify the source of the stories". Incidentally, I am aware of the requirement for sources in Wikipedia which you don't tire of quoting to me. I might point out what is written at the top of this page, none of which you have observed:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming

I still maintain that the lead is "crappy" (which is not a personal attack on you but on the article, in case you hadn't noticed). From the very start you've manifested what I can only descibe as a "snooty" attitude. The more I put the case that I expect more from this article, the more you engage in personal attacks (eventually accusing me of "whining"). Are you sure that you're the right person to be defending this article? 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're still having trouble understanding that sentence, I see. Need I lay it out for you? The dramatic episodes are stories that appear in a hymn. Indian drama is traced back to those because that's where it takes its stories from. The sentence is identifying the sources of the stories that Indian drama uses, not telling us the origin of Indian drama. And it's no good getting all sanctimonious. You've admitted that your comments have been made from a position of ignorance but have been unwilling to go check sources to dispel that ignorance. This includes familiarising yourself with the history of Asian drama. Given that ignorance, you're in no position to assess whether or not the lead is "crappy." My attitude is entirely a function of your captious and ignorant postings. This is not a blog nor a forum for you to express your idiosyncratic take on the history of world drama, but a place in which to discuss making changes that will improve the article. You're not prepared to do the work that that requires and to make a positive contribution, as you've been invited to several times now. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for laying it out for me. Your explanation is much appreciated. It's a pity that's not what the sentence in the article either says or implies. So we're still in the same situation. The article is not fit for consumption by the average reader. Since you are so intent on defending the article and have so much knowledge that you can share with us when you feel like it, why don't you go and improve the article instead of blaming people who have difficulty with the poor writing? Sorry, I'm not one of your students who has to go to the library and research a paper for you. I'm an average reader who is having trouble with an article on a publicly available encyclopaedia because it's poorly written and structured. Calling me "captious" and "ignorant" and telling me to "go and find out for yourself and then fix it" is a nice cop-out from a person who describes himself as "a lecturer in drama in London" having "several degrees in theatre / drama / film from universities in the UK and USA". 203.169.48.225 (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's what the sentence in the section both says and means. It's there in black and white. And it is you that has a problem with the article. Since you do, improve it. No one else is under any obligation to satisfy your needs. The sourced material in the article is of a high standard. It is only your self-confessed ignorance that prevents you from grasping that. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the sentence says: "Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC". You are now telling me that "Indian drama" should be understood as "the stories that Indian drama uses". What remarkably precise use of language. No, I don't expect you to improve the article, because it appears to be beyond you.

I primarily regard Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia where it's possible to obtain good, balanced, comprehensive information. I still maintain that this article falls short on that count, which is why I pointed out my dissatisfaction with it. You, on the other hand, appear to believe that it's place to play silly games with words, insult people, and tell them to "go and look it up yourself, you ignoramus, and if you don't like what's here, come back and change it yourself". Since this article has failed me, I'll obviously have to go elsewhere for decent information. Chalk up another victory for Wikipedia.

Incidentally, since you are a "lecturer in drama" based in London, I assume (although following your sloppy use of the words "Indian drama" it's hard to be sure) that you are aware that "ignorant" has two nuances, one implying a general condition (an ignorant fool), one implying a lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing (ignorant of nuclear physics) (from Websters, if you want a source). You continue to describe me as "ignorant" in the second sense while implying the first. Very cutting. I don't particularly care whether you choose a Wikipedia talk page to vent your frustrations, but such childishness really doesn't inspire much confidence in your supposedly superior erudition. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are genuinely failing to grasp the point about that sentence in the section on Indian drama. Let's examine it phrase by phrase... it states: "Indian drama is traced back..." Yes? Not originates from, but may be traced to. In exactly the same way that Athenian tragedy may be traced to the epic poetry of Homer. Doesn't mean that Greek drama begins with Homer. It takes its stories from there. The sentence is identifying an influence; ..."to certain dramatic episodes" Not to certain dramas, but to events in the hymn that are "dramatic" - i.e., suitable for adaptation into drama. "described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC" - notice, it is the Rigveda that is this old, not the dramas that take it as their source. In exactly the same way, we could write that "Film Noir is traced back to the hardboiled narratives of Hammett and Chandler, which date back to the 1920s and 30s." Doesn't in any way say or imply that film noir started in the 20s-30s. It didn't. It may be traced back to then in that way. What I am telling you is not that "Indian drama" should be understood as "the stories that it uses" but quite the reverse: that the sentence doesn't say what you imagine it says and thus doesn't contradict the accurate, fully-sourced introduction. You seem to be having some trouble grasping this. I have no frustrations, other than with your ignorance. A word you seem to have trouble understanding. The two senses you attempt to distinguish are in fact the same sense - consult the OED, for example (sense #1). You said that the introduction is misleading and bad. It is neither. It is fully sourced and gives a good overview of the field. You have disagreed - fine. You have provided no evidence to support your disagreement. Not fine. Hence my invitation for you to go get some. In lieu of that evidence, your objections are groundless. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Film Noir is traced back to the hardboiled narratives of Hammett and Chandler, which date back to the 1920s and 30s". Fortunately, the actual article on Film Noir puts it rather better than you do: "Many of the prototypical stories and much of the attitude of classic noir derive from the hardboiled school of crime fiction that emerged in the United States during the Depression". See? It's not hard to be clear, accurate, and concise, is it?

The two senses you attempt to distinguish. Ah, yes, another snide and patronising comment. But since I indicated a source, your tone of pained disdain is quite unwarranted. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A source that you misrepresent - there is nothing snide or disdainful about pointing out factual errors. And the film noir statement that I constructed could be improved, certainly - as could the one on Indian drama in this article. The point, however, is that the sense of the existing statement was consistently misrepresented by you in your posts above. Its true sense should now be clear to you - it describes the sources of the stories that Indian drama dramatised, not the origin of Indian drama. And actually, yes, it is a challenge to be clear, accurate, and concise, as many of the less than well written articles in this encyclopaedia demonstrate. One becomes clear, accurate and precise by consulting appropriate sources. That is precisely what the introduction to which you have taken such exception does. I didn't write the section on Indian drama, and you, as any other browser, are welcome to improve it. I suggest that your energies are more appropriately applied in that direction than defending ignorant and captious objections on the talk pages. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The primary Websters definition of "ignorant" is "1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>". The synonyms section below it says: "ignorant may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>". So what am I misrepresenting? You use the word "ignorant" repeatedly with evident relish, superficially in the sense of "not knowing about drama" but with clear intent to insult. You are perfectly free to insult anyone you want in your clases or on your blog (if you have one), but this is Wikipedia, and insulting people, either brazenly or surreptitiously, is a breach of etiquette.

You have finally admitted that the article could be improved, which is a step forward. No, I don't happen to live near an English-language library and yes, I do want to know a bit more about the historical development of drama. The article claims that drama originated in Greece (which does not just mean "chronologically prior" in the normal use of English), but no sources are cited for this statement. If it was Greek drama that "seeded" Indian drama, then it would be very useful to have that in the article. To any normal speaker of English, saying that Indian drama traces back to episodes in the Rig Veda does not necessarily mean that they took their dramatic material from there; it implies that Indian drama developed organically from the Rig Veda in some way. You obviously have both the sources and the knowledge to remedy this gap; I do not. Confronted with criticism of the article, you had two choices (1) "You ignorant person, you know nothing; go and find out for yourself and improve the article (with sources) if it bothers you that much." (2) "Yes, you do have a point, there are a few unclear places. I have good sources and knowledge of this field; I'll fix it up so that more people can profit from the article." You chose the first. It's disappointing to find such an attitude in a person supposedly involved in "educating" students and the general public about his chosen field. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel insulted, that is a matter for you and a qualified psychiatrist. You identified your ignorance and I found that same ignorance to be at the root of many of your objections to the article. The allegedly "insulting" use of ignorant is a different sense to those that you cited--consult the OED. As someone who, from the very first post, has used phrases such as it "stinks", its "crappy", "the reason you're sore", you have no basis for complaining about anyone else's "attitude" or "etiquette". You've consistently misrepresented the actual contents of the article and captiously persisted even when the source of your confusion was pointed out to you. I have argued that the section of the article that you criticised--the introdution--is well-written and sourced. I didn't write the rest of it and not only have I no reason to defend its accuracy, at no point have I done so. I've pointed out to you that the sections on Indian drama and their corresponding articles are not sourced and so should be regarded with suspicion. I assume that any normal reader of English would be able to understand the first sentence of that section without the confusions to which you were subject. And, as I have already pointed out to you several times now, no one is under any obligation to improve the article to address concerns arising from ignorance. Hence my encouragements for you to do that yourself. Frankly, there are far more important areas requiring attention in the encyclopedia's coverage of theatre and drama, and it is to those that I give my time and effort. There is much in the encyclopedia that is unsourced or that requires expansion. Tracing the genealogical origins of Indian drama is low on the list of priorities. Since you feel that it is important, you could start with google books. Even with limited previews, it gives you enough access to reliable information to make the adjustments that you feel are necessary. That would certainly be a more productive use of your time and energy than attempting to reprimand me for failing to respect your ignorance. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel insulted. I see only continued pathetic attempts to insult. Perhaps you should see someone about the overweening and condescending attitude that shines through your writing. In fact, I do expect you to respect my "ignorance", because the function of an encyclopaedia is to enlighten the ignorant. But I don't think people should be expected to respect your arrogance, because there is no place for it in a collaborative enterprise such as this.

Strangely, I notice that you do not defend the lead or the article as a whole -- only the parts that you yourself have written. So from the very start it hasn't been about the article at all, it's been about defending Mr DionysosProteus's contributions. Perhaps the arrogance conceals a sensitive and defensive soul that feels itself under attack when its work is criticised. Unfortunately, when a person reads an article on Wikipedia, they don't (often can't) distinguish between the golden words of Mr DionysosProteus and the unsourced dross that other people have written. They read it as a whole. Your defence of the article would be more convincing if you wrote it from this point of view. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't feel insulted, then why write of my allegedly insulting posts? My attitude is a direct response to your own. And no, my function here is not to enlighten you. My only concern is with possible improvements to the articles. I've invited you to collaborate on the article several times, an invitation you've decided to repeatedly refuse. I find it baffling that you are able to read my posts above and conclude that "Strangely, I notice that you do not defend the lead or the article as a whole". How is that possible? I've repeatedly indicated, in unambiguious terms, that I was talking about the introduction/lead, which is the section that you criticised. You will note that this section is supported with many inline citations, just as the Classical Greek and Roman historical sections are. Much of the rest of the article is not supported in this way. The reason that those sections are supported is that I added the citations, having consulted the sources. Thus, I am in a position to confirm their veracity. It is on that basis that I am able to refute the criticisms that you made of it. Often your criticisms relied on an understanding of Indian drama gained from this article and those on the subject to which it links. I've pointed out that they are unsourced and that thus their information should be viewed with skepticism (as well as explaining in some detail the mistakes you've made reading them that have caused much of your confusion). It is on that basis that you, and anyone else, ought to assess the veracity and reliablility of the different parts of the article: whether their claims are supported with citations of reliable, third-party sources, as indicated in the references. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I find your attempts to insult laughably arrogant, but since a goodly portion of your diatribes consists in calling the other party "ignorant", I don't see why this tactic shouldn't be mentioned. It appears to be part of your stock in trade.

As for the opening sentence in Indian drama, I'm afraid that you have failed to present any convincing arguments that it means what you say it does. The confusion is yours, not mine.

It is gratifying to see that you've removed "originated in Greece" from the infobox. This was one of the problems I had with the article, and your removing it essentially vindicates my stance. (I don't care whether it was due to the "knowledgeable" comments of Johnbod or the "ignorant" comments of the anonymous user, the fact is that you've had to climb down, which is fine by me).

my function here is not to enlighten you. I didn't ask you to enlighten me. You have essentially said you don't respect ignorance, in the sense that you have supposedly been using it in all along -- lack of knowledge of the subject matter. If you don't believe that enlightening the "ignorant" (providing knowledge to people who previously lacked it) is one of the aims of Wikipedia, then I don't know what you're doing here. Or are you still engaging in your puerile game of using "ignorant" as a surreptitious insult? 203.169.48.225 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I refer to your comments as "ignorant" because that's what they are: not informed by the relevant knowledge. You stated that explicitly, having already made it clear by the tenor of your responses. If you took the time to address that ignorance, you wouldn't make the remarks that you have. Having been provided with a detailed explanation of the source of your confusion about Indian drama, quotations from reliable sources that confirm that explanation, and an example of a similiar construction to the specific sentence from this article that makes the sense clear, I can only assume that your failure to understand is wilful (or is it merely a difficultly following an argument?). I've read about Indian drama. I know that it wasn't invented four millenia ago. I've explained that to you. What's so hard to understand? And, as you will see from banner at the top of this page, the purpose of the talk pages is to improve the article, not to educate the ignorant, whether wilful or not. With regard to the infobox, it was not a part of the statements supported with the inline citations. That doesn't change the reality that the classical Greeks invented drama. DionysosProteus (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, my failure to "understand" is not wilful. It's simply not what the article says. Tracing drama back to episodes in the Rig Veda and tracing film noir back to hard-boiled novels are both sloppy formulations. The sentence as it stands is vague but by no means can be interpreted as meaning that "Indian drama takes its source material from the Rig Veda". The article at Theatre of India (Redirected from Indian drama) states this even more bluntly: "Theatre of India began with Rigvedic dialogue hymns during the Vedic period." This is the message that is being put out on those pages dealing with Indian drama or theatre. Whoever is writing those pages obviously has a different take on the history of Indian drama from you. My interpretation is not incorrect. It is your attempts to skew the meaning in a direction favourable to your own interpretation that is incorrect.

As for educating the ignorant, I am talking about the attitude to editing articles. If someone as "ignorant" as me can't follow an article that you are defending so vehemently, perhaps you should stop trying to insult people and start considering that remarks from the "ignorant" might be one hint of how the article might be improved. That Indian drama sentence is a problem. You can castigate me for not going in and changing it, but your attempts to defend its obvious problems are completely forced -- especially considering that you didn't even write it! Why are you going out on a limb over such a poorly phrased formulation? I can only conclude that you're deliberately being difficult because I dared call your lead "crappy". 203.169.48.225 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I do find "Western drama originates in classical Greece" rather bald. It would be better as "The surviving literary tradition of Western drama originates in classical Greece." No doubt every area had its own folk or religious dramas which went unrecorded but fed into the Western tradition. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is precisely the distinction between drama and ritual that is at issue, however. A ritual isn't a drama. Religious rituals may contain quasi-dramatic or quasi-theatrical elements, but that doesn't make them either. All our evidence for folk plays--which are forms of drama rather than rituals, despite their significant ceremonial dimensions--post-dates classical Greece. Drama as an art-form is a Greek invention. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It may post-date classical Greece - most of the world's written records do - but can it be plausibly claimed to have classical Greece as its origin? I very much doubt it. Given the various other traditions that have emerged around the world, it seems a large claim indeed. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't actually making a claim about "origin", strictly speaking. It is saying that classical Greece invented drama, which it did. Given the way in which both the Hellenic culture (spreading into Asia) and the Roman Empire (bringing drama as far as Britain) distributed the form far and wide, it's not such a large claim. That folk ceremonials become increasingly dramatic under the influence of strolling players the world over is a fairly straight-forward narrative that the wide geographical spread and long historical duration support; drama, originating from Athens, has been performed for thousands of years. Is it perhaps the rather ugly infobox that someone added recently from which these concerns originate? In which case, I'm happy enough to remove it. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is making that claim in fact. I still think my ""The surviving literary tradition of Western drama originates in classical Greece.", which is unarguable, is better. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean by virtue of the infobox? I removed it about the time you were making that post. All of the other statements have citations from reliable, third-party sources representing a broad overview of the subject. Your suggestion carries the ideological baggage of assessing drama as "literature". Ah, and with regard to the claim, I meant that the article isn't explicitly claiming that all world drama originates in Greece--though that is not an implausible claim by any means. But you are correct, it does claim that Western drama certainly does. I've added citations for that to resolve any uncertainly. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the quotes given support my more limited claim effectively; whether they actually support yours is in fact not at all clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that not clear? They make no mention of a tradition of literature. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My problems with the lead

Definition: Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance. (Presumably the definition, then, is "fiction represented in performance". It's a pretty broad definition, and somewhat narrower assumptions crop up further down.)

Etymology: The term comes from a Greek word meaning "action" (Classical Greek: δρᾶμα, drama), which is derived from "to do" (Classical Greek: δράω, drao). (Fine)

Nature: The enactment of drama in theatre, performed by actors on a stage before an audience, presupposes collaborative modes of production and a collective form of reception. The structure of dramatic texts, unlike other forms of literature, is directly influenced by this collaborative production and collective reception. (This is ok. But here we are taking drama in its broadest sense, including, I presume, lighting, scenery, performance, and all else? Or is this too simplistic? Are we only referring to the collaborative delivery of lines?)

Supreme examples: The early modern tragedy Hamlet (1601) by Shakespeare and the classical Athenian tragedy Oedipus the King (c. 429 BCE) by Sophocles are among the supreme masterpieces of the art of drama. (So Hamlet and Oedipus are the supreme masterpieces of "fiction represented in performance". More strictly speaking, they are texts for dramatic performance. Surely it is only when they are actually performed that they can be regarded as masterpieces. I wonder how appropriate it is to cite just two works as masterpieces of the genre, when there are other works in other traditions that may also be regarded as masterpieces, although in different terms from the Greek or English traditions. Putting this in the lead worries me a bit.)

Explanation of masks (comedy and tragedy): The two masks associated with drama represent the traditional generic division between comedy and tragedy. They are symbols of the ancient Greek Muses, Thalia and Melpomene. Thalia was the Muse of comedy (the laughing face), while Melpomene was the Muse of tragedy (the weeping face). (This introduces two things: the masks, and the distinction between tragedy and comedy. This distinction is important in the lead, because it is referred to again below. The two masks are features of Western drama specifically).

Mode: Considered as a genre of poetry in general, the dramatic mode has been contrasted with the epic and the lyrical modes ever since Aristotle's Poetics (c. 335 BCE)—the earliest work of dramatic theory. (Now we have a distinction drawn between dramatic, epic and lyrical modes. How these Aristotelian modes fit in with the definition of "fiction represented in performance" is not totally clear. If drama is "performance", the how are "epic" and "lyric" defined? In other words, this is just bare bones -- there needs to be more meat on the bones in order to make it comprehensible).

Modern senses: The use of "drama" in the narrow sense to designate a specific type of play dates from the 19th century. Drama in this sense refers to a play that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy—for example, Zola's Thérèse Raquin (1873) or Chekhov's Ivanov (1887). It is this narrow sense that the film and television industry and film studies adopted to describe "drama" as a genre within their respective media. "Radio drama" has been used in both senses—originally transmitted in a live performance, it has also been used to describe the more high-brow and serious end of the dramatic output of radio. (You will notice that reference is made to "tragedy" and "comedy" again. Strangely, a specific type of play that is neither comedy or tragedy is referred to as being drama a "narrow sense". For me, this sounds like a broader sense, not a narrow sense. I find it hard to understand what is being got at, when we haven't defined "tragedy" and "comedy" as primitive terms in the lead.)

Other elements: Drama is often combined with music and dance: the drama in opera is sung throughout; musicals include spoken dialogue and songs; and some forms of drama have regular musical accompaniment (melodrama and Japanese Nō, for example). In certain periods of history (the ancient Roman and modern Romantic) dramas have been written to be read rather than performed. In improvisation, the drama does not pre-exist the moment of performance; performers devise a dramatic script spontaneously before an audience. (If "performance" is the key word, then music and dance should be equally valid ways of presenting narratives. Or to put it another way, is it really possible to divorce the other elements of the performance from the purely literary aspect?)

These are some of the problems I have with the lead. I find it hard to understand because it seems to shift focus and hints at basic distinctions like 'tragedy' and 'comedy', but doesn't really define them. And as I said, it is very Western-centric.

203.169.48.225 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC

All of the statements in the lead are sourced with citations. You will notice that those sources are all reliable overviews of the subject in general. It is from those that the definitions are taken. They are not making "assumptions" but describing what drama is. As a form that has existed for 2,500 years, this involves a range of historical variations. The description that includes performance doesn't entail the inclusion of "lighting, scenery" etc. That is theatre. As previously stated, it is a "mode of fiction". It is describing the special quality of dramatic texts as distinct from other modes of fiction. I don't quite follow your argument about Hamlet and Oedipus... is it possible that you're confusing the sense of "represented"? It doesn't mean "represented" in the sense that an example represents a general category, but rather in the sense of representation (arts) - i.e., mimesis. They are texts whose special quality is that they are designed for performance--and a special kind of performance at that, namely mimesis rather than diegesis (the distinction arising from the contrast between actors and rhapsodes, both of whom "perform" but only one of whom performs "drama"). Hence they remain masterpieces performed or not, without that detracting from the special nature of their fictional mode. This also explains how the anomoly of "closet drama", as some call it, still qualifies. Any survey of world drama will include those examples. You are welcome to add other candidates if they are in the same league and are provided with a citation. The next nearest competitors for anything like their degree of world fame would be the Scandinavian/Russian realists/naturalists, or Brecht/Beckett. The masks originated in Greece 2,500 years ago, but are now symbols of drama the world over. The relationship between the opening definition and the Aristotlean modes should be clear now that I have explained the apparent confusion about the relationship between text and performance. With regard to the 'drama in the narrower sense' section, I am confused as to why you think that we haven't been introduced to comedy/tradegy at this point, since it happened in the previous section--the generic distinction. It is a narrower sense because "drama" refers there to a particular type of "drama" (namely one that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy). Some dramas are "dramas", some are "tragedies", some are "comedies". This is an historical development, which the section explains. With regard to your last section, most of your questions should have been addressed by means of the clarification about text/performance above; of those that remain, I would ask: in what way is music able to represent fiction? Dance is able to represent fiction, but does not always do so in its essence (its representational abilities are not always and inherently utilised). Aristotle, in the Poetics, describes this. Remember that at the origin of drama, dance is a part of it--Athenian tragedy is a form of dance-drama, in which its lyrical stasima are sung and danced. It was in imitation of this that opera, as a hybrid genre of music and drama, was created. Hence the definition at the start: the specific mode. You haven't indicated the ways in which you consider the lead "West-centric"; you have pointed out the origin of the masks and the fact that Hamlet and Oedipus are both European texts. This doesn't make it "West-centric". In all of those cases, the claims made by the article hold for the entire planet--namely that H&O are examples of the highest, most-recognised achievements in world drama. If you have alternatives, by all means name them. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)