Talk:Marlovian theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marlovian theory is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare 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.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Did You Know An entry from Marlovian theory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 May 2006.
Wikipedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV Needed

Please note that I am putting this page up for a POV-check, since several of the sections (The Sonnets, the section about the monuments) are clearly from the Point of View of someone who is a Marlovian. Statements that suggest that all it takes is simply reading the sonnets or interpreting inscriptions in commonsense ways would clearly show the sense of the Marlovian theory are simply poor uses of the Wikipedia. The Marlovian theory is held by a minority of scholars and should not be written of as something taken for granted by anyone with half a brain. Hate to be so stern, but it must be done... Zerobot 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As the original author, I am quite happy for it to be amended in this way by someone who does not share my 'point of view'. It is far easier for them to see where the mark has been overstepped than it is for me.
If I may just defend my statement about only having to take "take what the Sonnets actually say", I was thinking about the fact that Marlovians can, for example, take "a wretch's knife" to mean a wretch's knife, rather than assume, as most scholars have to, that he must have really meant Old Father Time's scythe; can take an "outcast state" literally to mean an outcast state, not just a feeling that nobody likes him; and can accept that when he says his "name receives a brand" it means that his reputation has been permanently damaged, and not simply that acting is considered a somewhat disreputable profession.
As regards that bit about the monument, I think it would be wrong not to mention it, but would welcome advice on how it might be reworded to make it more neutral! Peter Farey, 193.237.254.37 06:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have now tweaked the article in various ways to make the neutral POV more obvious. My own view is that any further change in this respect will be excessive, but would nevertheless welcome other people's thoughts on the matter. Peter Farey 193.237.254.37 04:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnets Section

This section reeks of POV. There is no place in Wiki for interpretting Shakespeare's sonnets, perhaps outside of an article called "Interpretations of Shakespeare's Sonnets, Various." I am afraid I am going to go ahead and remove this section, replacing it with some comment that some hold that particular interpretations of Sheakespeare's Sonnets may parallel some elements of Marlowe's personal life, or some such. Zerobot 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting that chunk is fine by me. Peter Farey, 193.237.254.37 06:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stratfordian?

It would be nice if somebody actually explained this term in the article, or linked to an article that did. - RW 63.21.75.12 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] citations

It's mostly improper formating for external links. But right now I' a bit busy, will probablycome back and fix it later. Circeus 00:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also needs toplace refs after punctuation and strip the spaces before Circeus 00:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing needed

Someone has apparently hacked or editiied the history of the theory portion of this page. The line reads:

"However, the creator of the most detailed theory i sfgkijhtpjdgoix this theory stats that the dude is a piece of royal crap and that he cant of Marlowe's authorship was..."

[edit] Historical evidence

"According to history, Marlowe was killed in 1593 by a group of men including Ingram Frizer, a servant of Thomas Walsingham. Facing the death penalty for heresy, arranged the entire affair by use of his theatrical arts and the spying network of his patron."

This doesn't make sense. Please revise. TheMadBaron 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planned revision

I am about to offer a new version of this page, to make it more comparable with the length of the Baconian and Oxfordian entries, to add more complete information about the subject, and (I think!) to improve the argument's structure a bit. I have sent a copy to the person I believe to be the author of the existing entry and await his comments. Meanwhile, if there is anything anyone thinks I should bear in mind, please let me know. Peter Farey 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea to expand the article, as it needed more detail, but I must admit it seems like the article has gained a POV slant now. I don't think the goal should be to make the argument for Marlowe, but rather explain to someone unfamiliar what the arguments for and against Marlowe are. norm77 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Added a touch about the speed of Frizer's pardon. (Felsommerfeld 14:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] December 26 '07 changes

Certain additions were made on 26th December, which I'm afraid I have felt obliged to remove, for the following reasons:

1) In the section on the Sonnets, the insertion of the comment about Sonnet 86 is in my view unnecessary, as well as turning the paragraph into gibberish. In order to achieve a NPOV we have already removed two paragraphs on the apparent relevance of various other sonnets to the theory, and this one is far less appropriate than most of those which were deleted at that time.

2) The graph showing the time spans of various authorship candidates is relevant to the article on the Shakespeare authorship question as a whole, but in my opinion adds little of value to this article, the thrust of which is to explain the reasons why Marlovians believe that Marlowe survived 1593 and made a major contribution to Shakespeare's works, and not why anyone else did not.

3) The opening paragraph of the "External Evidence" section up to "Shakespeare's grave etc." was written as a counter to the argument of whole "Marlowe's Death" section. To then add a counter to that is illogical, even if it had had something to do with external evidence, which it doesn't, and wasn't so obviously written by someone whose first language is not English.

Peter Farey 193.237.254.37 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoffman Prize

Thanks for the kind words, but I think the information about my win is better placed in the notes, where I had in fact already somewhat cryptically referred to it, and without the (very welcome) comment, which looks a little strange given that most of the entry can be identified as mine! Peter Farey 193.237.254.37 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re January 16 '08 changes

I have restored all of the em-dashes (used in accordance with the Style Manual) which someone misguidedly replaced with ordinary hyphens, and also put back the full stops after the initials in the names (as illustrated by the 'J.R.R. Tolkien' in the Manual). I've gone back in several cases to the UK English I had used originally and which is no less correct than the American. However, I have also now used italics rather than bold where I still think special emphasis is helpful and corrected the way in which I have been showing dates. Some of the changed wording I have left if it did seem to offer an improvement. Peter Farey 193.237.254.37 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)