Talk:Hot 'N Throbbing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
[edit] Review
I don't think it's neccessary to quote large passages from a review. However, after reading the sentence under "Critical Reception" about the review panning the play as a "dated" and "confused work lacking entertainment or instructive value", I felt that it was necessary to cite some exact quotes so that the reader could see for themselves. "Confused"--certainly, and I wanted to make sure to keep that in."Dated"-well, not the way I read "this play seem [sic] as relevant as ever". Interested in discussion.JeanColumbia 11:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As the only allowable analysis of the work (our own would violate WP:NOR) it is important to include published criticism. The reason we favor direct quotes over prose interpretation is to ensure that we stay true to the critic's intention. If you check out some other articles on works of popular fiction, you'll see that the amount of criticism included here isn't a large amount, relatively speaking. VanTucky (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Themes
The themes section seems too opinionated, especially the statement:
The play is a statement in the vein of radical feminist thought which attributes domestic violence to the direct influence of pornography. This is in contrast to more contemporary feminist ideologies such as sex-positive feminism.
It is not the job of reference works, like Wikipedia, to provide interpretations of art, but rather to cite interpretations by critics and scholars. I think the quote from The Pheonix alone is sufficient. Furthermore, I do not think that this quote can be justified by arguing that it cites a popular, commonly held, or "obvious" interpretation of the play. The play directly references not only pornography, but also horror films (The Shining) and great works of the Western literary canon like Moby-Dick and Ulysses (novel), the latter being infamous in its time for its depiction of masturbation. By doing so, the play can be read as questioning the boundaries between "art" and "pornography" and exploring how both affect how we think about violence and sexuality. Furthermore, the quote states that radical feminism is in contrast to sex-positive feminism, which is inconsistent with the Wikipedia article on radical feminism.
A much more ambiguous reading of the play than the one provided is possible, but I don't think either should be crammed down peoples throat's, so we should just have the quote from The Pheonix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.134.56 (talk) 00:45, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that Wikipedia does not, or should not, include good analysis of artistic works, you would be sorely wrong. I personally would suggest you develop a more solid experience in contributing to Wikipedia before making broad judgements as to what it is or is not. Nowhere in a discussion of what Wikipedia is not does it suggest that an encyclopedia does not include well-written information on artistic themes and interpretation. If you're suggesting we remove any critical work except the Phoenix...in a word, no. Here at Wikipedia we include all types of notable critical work available, and the words of the New York Times are certainly relevant. As to the "radical feminist" issue, you're right to bring that up. I have removed the notion that her themes are directly attributable to that grain of feminism. But a discussion of what conclusions the play makes is just as important as including what themes she touches upon. VanTucky (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
