|WikiProject Comedy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Dark comedy vs. black comedy
I'm not sure if dark comedy and black comedy are the same thing: dark comedy is certainly tragicomedy, but black comedy seems to imply tragedy as farce, where we are not meant by the author to care very much about the characters. The Anome
I do not think the opening definition is accurate. A tragicomedy is not a "serious play with a happy ending". It is a tragedy with comic aspects. i.e. Uncle Vanya by Chekhov.
- Actually both definitions are legitimate in regard to how the term has been used historically. I think the lead as it stands now strikes a fair balance between the two definitions, though I think that the definition ought to specify that tragicomedy is a "genre" and note a "work of fiction," as such.ÇaCestCharabia (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Difference between this and black comedy
Tragicomedy versus dramedy
Aren't they the same thing, one of which just has a longer and sillier name?
- No. Not quite. Leaving aside the fact that everyone I know finds the shorter "Dramedy" term to be the sillier one (due to its similarity to the name of a certain animal), of course :P ... "dramedy" (also known as comedy-drama or drama/comedy, etc.) is a hybrid genre of drama with comedy, whereas "tragicomedy" is more specifically a hybrid of comedy and tragedy. While tragedy is a subgenre of drama, it is not the exact same genre. To say they're "the same thing" is a lot like saying pastiche and parody are "the same thing", or that there's no distinction between parody, farce, and satire; they're certainly related, and technically cross paths a lot (that is to say, tragicomedy by default would be a form of dramedy, just like many parodies or satires are also farces or pastiches, and just like all parodies, satires and farces are a form of comedy), but they are still separate genres, which is why the terms are still separate. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to have a Neutral Point Of View. Examples:
- Plautus's comment had an arguably excessive impact on Renaissance aesthetic theory
- more recent "romances" such as Orlando Furioso, and even The Odyssey were at best puzzles; at worst, mistakes
- Even more important was Giovanni Battista Guarini
- Guarini's tragicomedy offered modulated action that never drifted too far either to comedy or tragedy
- Fletcher offered an interesting definition
- The old styles were of course cast aside as tastes changed in the eighteenth century
- Orlando Magic benchwarmer Pat Garrity, an awkwardly bad basketball player, is the perfect embodiment of tragicomedy.
- Some of those I wouldn't say are very bad - for instance your second example there seems to be written from the perspective of those of the time, i.e. paraphrasing a description of those opinions, not actually expressing an opinion on those past takes on the works in question (this - that is, the fact that it wasn't claiming to subscribe to either that position or an opposing one - seemed perfectly clear to me while reading), and additionally, the use of "romances" in quotation marks seemed to indicate (to me at least) a denotation of a fluctuating definition for the term "romances" in theatrical history (especially given that the rest of the article describes additional historical uses for the term not 100% in keeping with the modern usage, implying that the works may have been considered "romances" at the time, but that they would not necessarily be considered under that definition today since the term has changed meaning); I could see how some would have a problem with the wording I guess, since it's a touch less formal than WP normally does, but it's not that bad.
- And then there's your sixth item in the list, which really doesn't say much except "hey look, the zeitgeist moved on, and so like, the older stuff wasn't popular anymore" really. Some of the other examples in the upper portions of the list such as describing Guarini's work as "even more important [to the development of the tragicomedy genre, is the implication]" or the "modulated action that..." section, are debatable; they're not perfectly worded, but they could be easily tweaked towards better neutrality.
- That said, other examples on the list are bad seeds, and should be removed. And while I would posit it's actually entirely possible for someone who fancies themself an expert but lacks Reference Tag Fu to have written the bulk of this in different-than-Wikipedia-standard prose, I also won't inherently dispute the possibility that it's been cribbed a little at some point. The tone is much more along the lines of something you'd find on a university professor's webpage or a magazine article than your usual WP entry. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)