|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Literature||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|This article is/was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s) A Wiegers, Jdry20, Sarahmichelle1895 will be working on it. Jlehmann2, Cheesemanj, Rolacey will be peer reviewing it.|
A simple definition and solid examples, please
A definition of Grotesque Body should proceed anything else, as it would greatly improve this article.
We should put a definition before rushing forth to drop names like Bakhtin and Rabelais and Luttazzi to demonstrate how elite we are.
It's a "concept and literary trope", but what kind of concept and literary trope is it? Saying that something is a concept is almost as vague as saying that something is a noun.
This article should also include some solid examples of grotesque body.
I would a define groteque body, but I'm not quite sure what the simple definition is. LOLOLOLOBBQELEVENTYONEONEONE ahem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC) --Doubledragons (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Tidy up/ Confusing
One user found this confusing. I have to say this is or hopefully was pretty heavy stuff. I reworded some things, wikilinked some unclear terms and fixed referencing. The intangential concept was also somewhat explained in a similarly complex manner making comprehension of the literary node an intraversible task. Exactly. I think most users reading this be familiar with literature but i've used less taxing terms now. I for one hate dumbing down but i think the people who wrote the original have somehow accomplished the task of "smarting up". Hopefully it's a little clearer now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Confulsing as all hell
What on earth is this article about? I read the title, and I see a rotting corpse with maybe one eye missing. Literary trope? Someone, please help. This sounds for all the world like a hoax article. InFairness (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The overall summary of the Grotesque Body is solid however I feel as though there is a lot left out like the fact that the grotesque mainly focuses on bodily orifices and/or reproductive organs. In my opinion these components are more essential to the grotesque because they are the means by which the body is able to eat, drink, defecate, etc.Jdry20 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There should be a more in depth explanation as to what the Grotesque body is as well as carnival. These words and concepts are introduced, however without understanding, they make the article confusing and hard to follow. The add in of authors could be beneficial with more explanation. I think that if there was background or even a hyperlink option for people to further read about the added topic, it would help this article greatly. The paragraph about the parts of the body is one of the most important concepts because it further explains the reasoning behind the concept. Sarahmichelle1895 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I also added a section to describe the Carnival. I did this to create a better understanding and a brief overview of the topic. There is already a hyperlink above the section I added for the reader to explore if they have further, more in depth questions about the topic.Sarahmichelle1895 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I gave more insight as to why the regions on the body that protrude out or allow the outside in are used as an exaggeration of the grotesque, I also added a small look at the medieval use of the Grotesque Carnival and that belief.Jdry20 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I added two pictures to this article in order to clarify any questions about what the grotesque can look like through art. One example is of scaffolding that depicts a man eating and the other is a painting that depicts a scene at Mardi Gras. Sarahmichelle1895 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the article is straight to the point and well-organized. The information supports the topic and is written in a way that can easily be understood. It was good to talk about the idea of the carnival as well, and the background on the topic makes it interesting. Overall, it's a good article. The sources are cited properly and there doesn't seem to be any major grammatical errors. Jlehmann2 (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It is evident that the information that was previously provided was a little confusing and the contributions to make it easier to understand were made. I appreciate the clarifications of the grotesque, as well as the more in depth section of the "Carnival". The pictures that were added also enhance the article. Visualizations have the ability to interest any reader, making them more prone to be interested in the information that has been provided. The only complaint I have is that the article is still fairly short. Being that the grotesque body has been a concept that's been around for centuries, more information can definitely be proved upon it. --Caitlynwhite (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)