Talk:William Shakespeare#Bad edit to "Authorship question"

Remsense, it would be beneficial if you had actually read the body of the article before editing the lead and removing other editors' contributions. The material regarding the modern reception of Shakespeare is thoroughly covered in the section "Critical reputation" and serves as a fair and balanced overview of how Shakespeare has been perceived, particularly in the age of modern drama since the 19th century.

The mention of bardolatry, a term coined by George Bernard Shaw—a Nobel Prize laureate in literature—is far from undue. On the contrary, it highlights a critical aspect of Shakespeare's legacy: the tension between reverence and critique. The modern reception of Shakespeare should include this nuanced perspective, especially given the transformative influence of Ibsen on drama and the contrasting views of T. S. Eliot, who found Shakespeare's "primitiveness" a hallmark of his enduring modernity. These contrasting views are crucial for understanding how Shakespeare's relevance has been debated in modern theatrical contexts.

To excise this material risks creating an overly hagiographic portrayal of Shakespeare. Wikipedia's objective is to present a balanced narrative, not one that veers into idolization by suppressing critical perspectives. Including this context acknowledges both Shakespeare's towering achievements and the evolving discourse about his place in literature.

The lead should reflect this nuanced understanding, which is consistent with the evidence presented in the body of the article. To ignore such discussions may inadvertently contribute to the very bardolatry that Shaw critiqued. --Msbmt (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:At the very least we should mention bardolatry somewhere. For example, {{tq|The modern reception of Shakespeare reflects both admiration and critique, with George Bernard Shaw coining the term bardolatry to challenge excessive reverence.}} --Msbmt (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:The lead is meant to be a brief summary of key facts about a subject, proportional to their representation in the article body. Very often, it absolutely should not describe nuances of this kind as there is simply no time to do so without throwing the reader's initial assessment totally out of whack. Juxtaposing a well-cited claim with one that is contrary or dissenting but clearly less well represented is an antipattern. Such nuances belong in the body . Remsense ‥ 论 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

::Nobody is ignoring anything. The "bardolatory" criticism of Shaw is already mentioned in the Critical reputation section, which points to two, fuller, sub-articles where it is covered in greater detail. To lob an uncontextualised mention of Ibsen into the lead would be of no help to the reader. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

To write a creative writing 103.163.67.9 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:If what you read in the article didn't help, try :Category:William Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Following-up this discussion: Talk:William_Shakespeare/Archive_23#Quartos

I said, then, that I would keep an eye out for any contrary sources and, as it happens, in my reading this week, I came across one. A WP:RS by Barbara Mowat says that Henry VI Part 3 appeared not in a Quarto but in an Octavo. I don't think the article needs to stress the point: but does anyone agree maybe "The others had already appeared in quarto versions—flimsy books made from sheets of paper folded twice to make four leaves" should become "Most of the others had already appeared in quarto versions—flimsy books made from sheets of paper folded twice to make four leaves" or something similar? AndyJones (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• In the absence of any replies here, I'll make that change shortly. AndyJones (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
• {{done}} AndyJones (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The discussion was unanimous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It is problematic to make definitive claims about Shakespeare’s bisexuality based solely on speculative interpretations by a handful of modern critics. The Wikipedia article (or stub) on this subject makes no mention of these commentators, yet their readings have subtly shaped a narrative that is far from universally accepted. The five most frequently cited figures in this debate are:

A. L. Rowse – One of the earliest academic biographers to suggest that Shakespeare may have had romantic feelings for a young man, based on his reading of the Sonnets. While he did not use the term "bisexual", his work was highly controversial and largely speculative.

Harold Bloom – A major American literary critic who explored the emotional and erotic ambiguity in Shakespeare’s sonnets but refrained from explicitly labeling Shakespeare’s sexuality. Bloom emphasized psychological and aesthetic interpretations over biographical claims.

Stephen Greenblatt – A leading voice in New Historicism who acknowledged the homoerotic undertones in the Sonnets but avoided definitive conclusions. He proposed that Shakespeare's emotional life was likely fluid, but again, this remains speculative.

Stanley Wells – A prominent Shakespeare scholar who, especially in his later work, has argued more openly for the plausibility of Shakespeare's bisexuality, particularly through his editorial work on All the Sonnets of Shakespeare (2010).

Oscar Wilde – Though not a modern scholar per se, Wilde was one of the first public intellectuals to suggest a romantic dimension to Shakespeare's relationship with the so-called “Fair Youth”, notably in The Portrait of Mr. W. H. (1889), a fictionalized and highly stylized narrative.

What makes this interpretative trend particularly intriguing is that the first two prominent proponents of this view—Harold Bloom and Stephen Greenblatt—are of Jewish origin. This is relevant because Shakespeare’s work, notably The Merchant of Venice, has long been perceived as containing anti-Jewish sentiment, particularly through the character of Shylock.

Other plays where Jewish themes or stereotypes appear, albeit more marginally or allegorically, include:

The Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe is often discussed in contrast to Shakespeare’s Merchant, but some scholars note Shakespeare’s engagement with the broader Elizabethan “Jewish question”.

In Much Ado About Nothing, there is a passing line about Jews that reflects the casual anti-Semitic idioms of the time.

Shakespeare’s England did not officially allow Jews to live openly, so his representations are drawn from cultural stereotypes rather than real-life interaction.

Given this context, it is worth at least acknowledging the ironic tension in how modern interpretations—especially those emphasizing personal identity categories foreign to the Elizabethan worldview—are projected back onto a playwright whose own texts could be read as problematic from those very perspectives.

:A few points:

:* Can you sign your posts, use four tildes at the end;

:* Can you highlight the "definitive claims about Shakespeare’s bisexuality" you say the article is making? I'm not seeing them;

:* What point are you trying to make re. the "Jewish origin" of two of the critics? It's unclear, and frankly troubling on first reading. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Agoreion did sign, but then removed it, presumably by mistake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)