Talk:The Author's Farce

Reversion

I reverted User:NuclearWarfare's recent edits because they did not improve the sense or grammar, they actually made it worse. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane's

looks a bit odd. It needs re-writing to do away with the case ending, doesn't it? --117.204.88.6 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really - it is quite standard for locations - London, England's comes up quite a bit for instance. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Now reworded. Possessives on the end of a two-layer location should be avoided, at least in UK English. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Who rejected the plays? The management of the theatre? A theatre company? Not the building itself presumably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lockwood footnote for "Bantam"

Here is footnote 2, page 285, from Lockwood. The footnote accompanies the first occurrence of the word "Bantam" in the text of Fielding's The Author's Farce. (Please see the FAC review discussion for the context.) :

The tiny kingdom of Bantam at the west tip of Java, in the hands of the Dutch, had signified exotically distant opulence since Jonson mentioned it that way in The Alchemist (1610), II.iii, but particularly after 1682, when the Dutch expelled the English merchants there and ambassadors from the kingdom created some excitement by a London visit. This lost and thus more theatrical Bantam is the place Sir Samapson Legend is talking about Congreve's Lost for Love (1695) when he says he cuckolded the former king, 'and the present Majesty of Bantam is the Issue of these Loyns' (II.v); and somewhat more to the purpose of Fielding's play. ... Woods comments: 'Fielding's purpose, of course, is to make his denouement as incredible as possible, and a more fantastic series of unmotivated discoveries which reveal unsuspected relationships in ludicrous scenes of recognition would be hard to imagine.' This part of the play became independently popular, despite or because of the chain-reaction silliness, and was featured in later playbills (e.g. 21 Oct 1730) as 'The Triumphs of the King of Bantam'.

From: Lockwood, Thomas, ed. (2004), Henry Fielding: Plays Volume I: 1728-1731 (Wesleyan Edition of the Works of Henry Fielding), Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 808, ISBN 0199257892. "Bantam," accordingly, should be linked to: Sultanate of Banten.

At [1] you stated: "which was the capital of the Kingdom, but rather Sultanate of Banten". Was this from the above (as I do not see it in the above) or was this matching "kingdom" with a connection to Bantam? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They are the same place/thing, & I think either works as a link. I'll add a bit to the Sultanate explaining the English spelling. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Re to OR) The footnote is linked to "Bantam" (first occurrence); in other words, Bantam is linked to the Kingdom of Bantam, which is the Sultanate of Banten (in modern Indonesian spelling, and probably even Dutch spelling, judging from the references). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(To Johnbod) The Brits, apparently more than other colonists, liked to change native spellings to suit their linguistic predilections. When, in the 1980s and 90s, some Indian cities and states began to use "original" spellings for their names, I was suspicious at first, but then I happened upon old (eighteenth century) French and Portuguese maps, and they apparently had no problem spelling the place names in the original native spellings! I guess I am suggesting that "Bantam" might have a similar history of change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether the actual local pronunciation corresponded more closely to an "am" or "en" in C17 English who knows. Modern Indonesians have clearly gone with the spelling the Dutch used. Talk of "changing native spellings", "original native spellings" and "linguistic predilections" is beside the point here, since of course there was no "original native spelling" in English. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

:) I was being loose (and incorrect) with language. What I meant was that the French and Portuguese spelling of Indian place names seem phonetically closer to what are the place names in the local languages. After all there is no apriori reason why a name like "Bengaluru" (pretty close in spelling to the local pronunciation I'm told) and spelled that way in French and Portuguese maps for almost 200 years, would be turned by the British into "Bangalore." Or "Mysuru" into "Mysore." Since, Bantam was the first "factory" of the East India Company (abandoned by the Company in 1683), and since the Company took similar chances with nomenclature with its later factories in Bombay (now Mumbai), Calcutta (now Kolkata), and Madras (now Chennai), I was wondering if there was a theme. Just having fun, nothing serious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When this is settled, can someone apply the correct fix? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate paraphrasing

I fear that the authors have taken an unacceptable paraphrasing liberties and thereby introduced unacceptable errors in the text of The Author's Farce.

Here are some examples of unsatisfactory paraphrasing from the "Background" section , (the first instance in the text where citations are provided). Please don't break up my text below with your replies. Please answer at the end.

Paragraph 1

(The paragraph is cited to pages 193–193 of the Lockwood edition (with introduction by Thomas Lockwood) (please view on Google books). I have also added "major" or "minor" to indicate the degree of the paraphrasing transgression.

• (Sentence 1)(Major) "The Author's Farce and the Pleasures of the Town was composed sometime during 1729 in response to Theatre Royal's rejection Fielding's earlier plays."
  • Lockwood doesn't say anything about this on pages 192–193, but on page 187, he does say: "From all these indications then, it seems likeliest that Fielding wrote The Author's Farce, or most of it, between late January and mid-March of 1730, or in other words between the opening of The Temple Beau on 26 January, and 18 March, when the play was announced as in rehearsal."
• (Sentence 2)(prose issue) "In the 18 March 1730 Daily Post and in the 21 March 1730 Weekly Medley and Literary Journal, the play as advertised as being rehearsed."
  • (I'm assuming "is/was advertised as being rehearsed" is meant.)
  • (This is a more subtle point.) What the authors want to say is/was "advertised as being being rehearsed." Obviously that is confusing, so it better to say "as being in rehearsal." The point is that whatever takes the place of * in the expression "was advertised as being *", should also be meaningful in the expression "It is *," for someone talking in the present. But "It is rehearsed" is not meaningful.
• (Sentence 3) (Minor, but unacceptable in an FA, much less a literature FA.) "The Daily Post ran advertisements for its opening in its 23 and 26 March publications, noting that the play would contain a puppet show."
  • The actual quote in Lockwood is: "On 23 March and again on the 26th the same paper advertised the 30 March opening performance of what was now being called The Author's Farce, "in which will be introduced an Operatical Puppet Shew, call'd the The Pleasures of the Town'. (p. 192)
  • "noting that" (in the paraphrased version) is both incorrect and ambiguous usage, since seems to suggest that it is the newspaper report that that does the noting. Besides advertisements generally don't "note."
  • I have already pointed out elsewhere that "23 and 26 March publications" is incorrect and should be replaced by "23 and 26 March editions," something (pretty obvious really) that OR is still disputing!
• (Sentence 4) (Minor, but, again, unacceptable in an FA) "The advertisement mentioned restricted seating and higher ticket prices, suggesting that the play was expected to be in great demand."
  • The actual quote from page 192 is "..., and adding copy on ticket prices (higher) and stage seating restrictions, as if anticipating big demand;" The uncertainty of the original, "as if anticipating," as well as the possibility that this could be a theatrical box-office ploy, is distorted in the paraphrase "suggesting that the play was expected to be in great demand." The paraphrase makes it much more of a given that the demand for tickets would be high.
• (Sentence 5) (Shabby and somewhat inaccurate paraphrasing.) "It ran for a total of 41 nights with 8 of the performances during the three weeks following Easter."
  • Actual quotes: (a) "The Author's Farce was acted for the second time on Wednesday, 1 April, and then followed seven more performances over the next three weeks of a somewhat irregular house schedule, with the Little Haymarket not open every week-night." (b) (p. 194) "On 23rd June Rape upon Rape replaced this bill. The Author's Farce was given once more this season, on 3 July, again with Tom Thumb. Altogether then there were 41 performances of the complete The Author's Farce, and one of The Pleasures of the Town (which is why some sources give 41 and some 42 as the season total)."
  • "It ran for a total of 41 nights" doesn't tell us anything about over what period of time (which was 30 March to 3 July, i.e. over three months). Moreover, although a reader will eventually figure out the right interpretation, saying "it ran for a total of 41 nights" certainly (even with "total") seems to imply that the run was more or less continuous, rather than what it really was—quite sporadic.
  • The paraphrase "with 8 of the performances during ..." (disregarding its prose issues) gives the eight performances of the first three weeks a somewhat bland equal billing with the season total. In fact, what Lockwood is saying there is that there were only eight performances. Later on page 194 he says, "It would appear from this initial performance history that The Author's Farce was playable and well liked but not instantly a great success, having about the same strength over those first eight performances as The Temple Beau had had at Goodman's Fields, in steady but not runaway appeal."
• (Sentences 6 and 7) (Major): "On 6 April 1730, it ran with The Cheats of Scapin. Afterward, the last act was made into the companion piece to Hurlothrumbo."
  • The actual quote is: "During these first nine performances the play was given by itself except on 6 April, when it was paired with The Cheats of Scapin, and on 20 April, when The Pleasures of the Town, meaning presumably only the third act, was given as the afterpiece with Hurlothrumbo: brilliant programming, it would seem, though this combination never appeared again."
  • The paraphrase "Afterword, the last act was made into the companion piece to ..." seems to suggest that this pairing was more long-term than short-term; it doesn't remotely hint that it was a one time event.

This, by the way, it the first paragraph in the text, where scrutiny can be brought to bear for paraphrasing errors. Please go through the rest of the article, or better yet, have a uninvolved copyeditor go through the article and make sure that the remaining sections have been similarly vetted. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A clarification - a "night" in a theatre happened on regular schedules and not "every night". Any more detail on the matter would be excessive. It does not matter if it ran on a Tuesday or a Wednesday. Furthermore, the level of clarity Fowler wants directly contradicts SlimVirgin's statement that there is too much detail. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. All you need to say is, "There were in all 41 performances of the complete play." Period. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sentence 1 - Now cited to Hume ("When Fielding sat down to write The Author's Farce, he had something to say. He was obviously furious about the rejection of his plays at Drury Lane, and particularly irked by the behaviour of Colley Cibber." etc) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I was right that the writing was born out of anger at Drury Lane's rejection, as I suggested in a post in the FAC review. (I suggest two possible sentences there (to NN) in place of the current sentence 1 in the lead, which I maintain is meaningless.) Can't speak for Slim Virgin, but it might that she/he is objecting to the confused details, which can seem excessive even when they are not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Some comments

A couple of comments in case they're helpful for the next FAC.

Part of the problem with the writing is that it's not fleshed out and doesn't flow all that well. I found myself not quite understanding what was being said, and having to go back and re-read sentences e.g. "Goddess Nonsense's choice of a husband from allegorical representatives of theatre and other literary genres"—I suppose I can work out what an allegorical representative of theatre and other genres is, but it would be nice to have it spelled out for me. The writer is meant to do that work, not the reader.

This earlier version of the lead is actually better, in my view, than the current version. It offers less information, but it's easier to understand. I'm not suggesting it be reverted, but the current lead could do with being re-written a little so that it flows nicely and makes sense to the reader on first reading. For example:

• Old version: "The Little Theatre allowed Fielding to experiment with his plays, which led him to try newer forms of comedies."

  That's very clear. It would be nice to know why that theatre allowed experimentation and others didn't, but that's a minor point, and perhaps not easy to explain briefly.

• Current version: "Having the Little Theatre as his venue allowed him to experiment with his plays and to alter the traditional comedy genre."

  This leaves the reader puzzled. The sentence doesn't say that the theatre was actively allowing Fielding to do something different. It just says there was something about the venue that allowed it. Was that theatre cheaper to hire than others, which meant he could spend more money trying something new? The reader is left to wonder.

There are quite a few sections in the article like this, where the reader might not be quite sure on first reading. And the performance history section is quite hard to get through; I don't think that degree of detail works. I'd recommend not reading the article for a couple of weeks, then approaching it with fresh eyes. When I do that with an article I've written, the prose issues often leap off the page at me, whereas when I'm editing intensely, it's sometimes harder to see them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the comparing of different versions, I agree. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

Right on time as usual, eh? Ok. God only knows why Ottava Rima asks me to review articles on topics he finds interesting since I usually am completely out to sea on these things. So my comments are from someone who has no familiarity with the topic.

• A preponderance of suches in the second paragraph of Themes. I'm not sure how to fix it.
• Like others, Fielding believed that there was a decline in popular theatre related to the expansion of the theatre audience, therefore he satirises theatre, theatre audiences, and theatre writers throughout The Author's Farce. A preponderance of theatres.
• Many of the characters in the play believe that the substance of a play matters little as long as it can earn a profit. Hollywood. So much has changed since Fielding's time, no? Nothing to change, just sayin'.
• Fielding later continues this line of attacks on audiences, morality, and genres when he criticises Samuel Richardson's novel, Pamela Not clear if this criticism is in the play or not.
• In particular, Fielding mocks how contemporary audiences favoured Italian opera. The character Signior Opera, the image of the favoured castrato singer within the puppet show, mocks the foreigners who performed as singers, along with the audiences that accepted them. Not clear what Fielding is saying about Italian opera. Why is he mocking it? Because it's Italian and a patriotism thing? There seem to be some cultural nuances not made explicit in the article for readers.  Done
• many other contemporary works mock women who favour eunuchs Like sparkly vampires?
• after which reject it for their own theatre I don't know what this means.
• Other characters are modelled on well-known personalities who Fielding was aware of but were not directly connected to his life: Mrs Novel is Eliza Haywood, Signior Opera is Senesino,[31] Bookweight is similar to Edmund Curll,[32] Orator is John Henley, Monsieur Pantomime is John Rich, and Don Tragedio is Lewis Theobald. Sir Farcical Comick is another version of Colley Cibber, but only in his role as an entertainer.[33] I don't know who any of these people are, so I don't know why using them as source material in Fielding's play is significant. To help poor ignorant readers like me, I suggest briefly describing who these folks are and why Fielding was compelled to make fun of them.
• Regarding the traditional British drama, many of Luckless's situations are similar to those found within John Dryden's The Rehearsal (1672), Farquhar's Love and a Bottle (1698), James Ralph's The Touch-Stone (1728), and Richard Savage's An Author to be Lett (1729). It is possible that Pope's Dunciad Variorum, published on 13 March 1729, influenced the themes of the play and the plot of the puppet show. However, the Scriblerus Club style of humour as a whole influences The Author's Farce and it is possible that Fielding borrowed from Gay's Three Hours after Marriage (1717) and The Beggar's Opera (1728).[35] Conversely, Fielding's play influenced later Scriblerus Club works, especially Pope's fourth book of his revised Dunciad and possibly Gay's The Rehearsal at Goatham. Similarly, I have never read or seen these plays, so I don't know what elements were influential or borrowed and why.
• It's not clear to me why a Performance history section should be this detailed. What is the significance of describing the rewrites and performance disparities? Again, I think some background knowledge of the theatre industry in London is missing.
• In 2002, Matthew Kinservik claimed that despite Fielding's success with the "the metonymic characters" in The Author's Farce, he was not yet the "committed Aristophanic scourge that he would later claim to be." Ok, what?  Done

I made it through the article and I found it mostly engaging and well-written, but I'm not surprised. I think it's quite well done and welcome discussion on the points above, looking forward to why my perceptions are just oh, so provincial. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've hit some, but not all, of your comments. Some bits are rife for original research, such as the elements that influenced or were borrowed from each play. The performance history is standard on most theatre articles and both gives history and background and notes significant rewrites. The last comment you had is something I barely understand myself, but there isn't much I can do about it (Ottava also seems to exhibit an odd attachment to funky sentences like that). Think this is ready for another FAC run? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence explaining the reason for Fielding's contempt of Italian opera. Looking at some of Moni3's other comments, I'm not sure myself that this is quite ready for another run at FAC yet. What the Hell does "In 2002, Matthew Kinservik claimed that despite Fielding's success with the 'the metonymic characters' in The Author's Farce, he was not yet the "committed Aristophanic scourge that he would later claim to be" mean anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought as much. I'll do my best to reword that last bit. Will look for sources to explain other bits when I return to school. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could that sentence not just be dropped? It seems to be more about Fielding's development as a playwright rather than about this specific play. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't have stopped you had you removed it, but it's gone now anyway. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 19:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good riddance. Which of Moni3's comments are still to be addressed? Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Think I hit most of those by now. I've ignored the point about performance history; Awadewit noted in the previous FAC that the info is important since the text changed each time and that it's likely useful to someone, though obviously not your average layperson. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 15:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)