Talk:Love's Labour's Lost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kenneth Branagh[edit]

Brannagh's adaption of this play is definitely pretty strange.

... and wonderful. I thought that it was genius! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

can't we find anything else?[edit]

What does that picture of some odd adaptation have to do with elizibethan playwriting. Can't we find anything more fitting?? Thanatosimii 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't understand the question. It's not an article about Elizabethan playwriting, it's an article about Love's Labour's Lost (of which Branagh's version is an odd adaptation). AndyJones 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Love's Labour's Lost is an elizabethan play. I said the picture was of an odd adaptation, and that's why the picture shouldn't be there. It's odd. It's quite out of place. Thanatosimii 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Then you're wrong. Love's Labour's Lost isn't JUST an Elizabethan play. It has an afterlife. Can you imagine what would happen to the wikipedia articles on Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet if we interpreted their scope to be discussions of the works as Elizabethan plays? No discussion of stage history. No 18th to 21st century criticism. No discussion of film versions. Your use of the word "odd" makes me wonder if your objection is that you didn't like the film: but your personal opinion on that, just like mine, is irrelevant. By all means go and find a photo of an Elizabethan performance though, if you can. AndyJones 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • That belongs in a latter section. Not as the front picture. The play is Shakespeare's, not Branagh's. Thanatosimii 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
          • There aren't any pictures on any of Wikipedia's Shakespeare pages we wouldn't delete if we gave credence to this non-argument. The play is Shakespeare's not Olivier's. The play is Shakespeare's not Dali's. The play is Shakespeare's not Millais'. The play is Shakespeare's not [insert name of director or artist here]. I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to continue this debate: it seems to me there's no meat to it. However I will revert any changes made to this page in reliance on it. AndyJones 12:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Think that if you wish. but it's the right argument. It is and only is Shakespeare's, and a derivative work deserves a subordinate position. I'm not interested in editing shakespeare, I'm just pointing out that it's going to make everyone who looks at the page think that it's written from a "froo-froo pansy girlie-man" or perhaps "spend too much time looking at "art" made out of two sticks, a boot, and a rodent nailed to a wall" postmodern deconstruction "spent-too-much-time-contemplating-one's-navel" position. (not my words or implications) This kind of literary criticism is beginning to wear thin with the meat-and-potatoes style literati. Thanatosimii 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's Lynn Truss when you need her?[edit]

What is up with the extra apostrophe in the title? -Acjelen 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No-one knows where the apostrophes are 'supposed' to be. Is it Love's labour's lost (i.e. love's labour is lost) or Love's labours lost (ie. the labours of love are lost)? Both mean basically the same thing but either is defensible grammatically. And the title page of the quarto (Loves labors lost) and the Folio (Loves labour's lost) are no help! The Singing Badger 21:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me, to Lynne Truss and two commenters here that the title of this article is crudely wrong, at least by one apostrophe! Methinks you should go with the quarto printing, Loves labours lost. And don't argue about the spelling of either Loves or labours because that is just spelling evolution. Lin (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LovesLaboursLost.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:LovesLaboursLost.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Just curious, should it be "Love's Labours Lost" without the second apostrophe as in "Love's Labour's Lost". Obviously "Love's Labour is Lost" makes sense but "Love's Labours Lost" makes more sense and is the way it appears on the title page as well as in the quote from Theognis. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Renaissance literature. Carnivorousfungi (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


About the 'extremely inaccessible to contemporary theatregoers' (in terms of humor) part under Reputation, it really depends on the execution. I once saw the play live in theatre and it was excellent. They tried to make the humor more accessible through gestures, poses, actions, etc, which made it quite a lot funnier and easier to understand than reading the original manuscript. Carnivorousfungi (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Plan for edits[edit]

Hi all, I'm utilizing this article as a class project (more info via the link the banner at the top of the page), and have been asked by my professor to provide a heads-up regarding the changes I plan on making. I would appreciate any advice/edits/comments you may have!... Expand Performance History section; expand Adaptations, add cultural references as necessary; add Music section that looks at music as utilized throughout the play; add a section relating to Themes in the play; expand Reputation section; expand introduction paragraph... Thanks! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent plan! I'm looking forward to seeing the new material. Filling out the Performance History, analyzing the music and themes, more on the critical reputation of the piece and adaptations of it will all certainly improve the article, and once it is expanded, the WP:LEAD section will need to be expanded to give an overview of the expanded article. I should note that cultural references sections are viewed somewhat skeptically on Wikipedia: whereas substantial references can be viewed as encyclopedic, our best articles usually do not include mere passing references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Good work on the Themes section. Note how I combined repeated references for you. Also, additional citations are needed. If the material is from the same sources, you can just add in a repeated ref. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Great! Most of it is indeed from the same sources (though reiterated time and time again), so I will do that. Thanks for your feedback; I appreciate it! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


I notice (in the adaptations section) that incidental music has been written for the play in modern times (and I'm sure in earlier periods). Is this music just for the songs that you mentioned, or has performance practice evolved to adding more music in other parts of the play, and, if so, does that affect your analysis of the "music" in the play as Shakespeare may have intended? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Great observation! I will definitely look into this before the semester is over! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Some technical things[edit]

Great work so far, Ashley. A couple of technical things

  • You need to expand the WP:LEAD section to give an overview or summary of the most important points from the entire article. It should be two or three paragraphs long and does not need to repeat the refs that are shown below.
  • Beware of the word "noted", which is often not a "neutral word" and can be taken to mean that we approve of the conclusion of the source. Better to say that the source "comments", "states", "writes", or "says" something, to show that it is the opinion of the writer, not our own opinion.
  • Try not to have stubby little paragraphs of only one or two sentences. If thoughts are related, you can often combine them into one paragraph. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate the feedback. I'm planning on updating the lead section next week after I flesh out a few of the other sections a bit, or later this week! I will definitely edit my usage of the word "noted," then -- I had no idea, but I see what you mean. I'll also string those smaller paragraphs together; I wasn't sure what the convention was. Oh, and per your comment re: the cultural references section, I'm thinking of not incorporating those after all. As you said, it's hard to find reliable sources, and I don't even know where to begin, in terms of research. Thank you again for all of your help! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Great. I may already have killed most of the "noteds" and stubby paragraphs for you, but check and see if I got them all. Sometimes cultural influence sections are good, but it is important to be selective and choose the most important ones. For an example, see: Hamlet#Influence. Oh, alos, the article could also use another image or illustration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Shakespeare Project Layout[edit]

Hey, I've just visited this page for the first time in months, and couldn't believe the improvement. Cracking stuff all round. One small thing I would say though is that the WikiProject Shakespeare use a standardized article layout for play articles, which you can find here. Granted, not all of the play articles adhere to this, but that's simply because the structure only came into 'existence' (relatively) recently and many of the plays simply don't have many (or any) active editors maintaining them. Just something for you to keep in mind for the future, especially if you start work on any other articles. Sadly, many of the play articles are in a sorry state of affairs... Anyhow, keep up the good work. Bertaut (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the refs. I looked at the "Standardisation of play articles" that you pointed us to. First of all, this is not new: it has been on the Shakespeare Project page for more than 5 years. This appears to have been merely an attempt at brainstorming some ideas, and it does not represent a guideline for play articles on Wikipedia (or even at the Shakespeare project). It does not seem to have gathered any kind of consensus at the project, although I admit that I did not investigate far enough back in the archives to be sure. I find it quite inadequate in many respects. For instance, the Productions description is just a start and is obviously incomplete, to say the least. A more detailed proposal is here. Perhaps you can combine the two. If you look at the WP:MUSICALS project, that project has a much more fully-formed set of article structure guidelines. So does the film project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Considered by "some"[edit]

The article says that the play "is considered by some to be a lost sequel." Who is being referred to? Just the two authors cited, or is it generally considered to be a lost sequel, or what? "Some" is a WP:PEACOCK term. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Odds and ends[edit]

  • Can someone add Act subheadings to the Plot summary?
  • Why are we listing so many editions near the end of the article? Are they all important, or do they all add to the understanding of a general encyclopedia reader? Is there a better way to organize them than alphabetically? Does anyone have sources that discuss which editions are the "standard" or best-accepted ones? If so, we could have a "selected" list of the most important ones, explaining why the critics/academics see them as the most important ones. See WP:IINFO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)