Talk:Women in Shakespeare's works

Some refs to add later

• Roman Shakespeare By Coppélia Kahn

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ddsNAAAAQAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Women+in+Shakespeare&ots=2r4OHt5CJ9&sig=WWstmtQVoyMBSp3wQXWIGbgJ_DM#PPA27,M1 Includes stuff on Lucrece which can extend article beyond the plays

• Comic Women, Tragic Men By Linda Bamber

"Reexamines Shakespeare's plays in terms of gender roles, arguing that Shakespeare was unable to transcend the limits of gender"

• Suffocating Mothers By Janet Adelman

"An original reading of Shakespeare's plays illuminating his negotiations with mothers, present and absent, and tracing the genesis of Shakespearean tragedy and romance to a psychologized version of the Fall."

• Enter the Body By Carol Chillington Rutter http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q3BhvzSFqpgC&dq=Women+in+Shakespeare&lr=&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

"Enter the Body speculates on how the theatre "plays" women's bodies, and how audiences read them. Focusing on literature, theatre and gender studies, it covers topics such as sex, death, race, gender, culture and politics. Carol Rutter explores the five female characters, Ophelia, Cordelia, Emilia, Cressida and Cleopatra to reconstruct specific theatrical moments that put their bodies spectacularly in play. One of the most provocative writers on women's performances of Shakespeare in Britain today, Rutter also situates these roles on the early modern stage, observing performers such as Kate Winslet, Judi Dench and Whoopi Goldberg."

• The Woman's Part By Carolyn Ruth Swift Lenz, Gayle Greene, Carol Thomas Neely

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=TnaEzQBjxMQC&dq=Women+in+Shakespeare&lr=&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Examines the plays of William Shakespeare from a feminist point of view and analyzes his portrayal of women ISBN 0252010167, 9780252010163 348 pages

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong bias in the article

Supposing you knew nothing about Shakespeare, his plays or the times he lived, he turns out to be a kind of proto-feminist according to this article. Why is there no elaboration for the "substantial amount of criticism" some characters have received? Nxavar (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, although I feel the main issue is simply that the article is so short and hasn't received much attention. In cases like this, any bias likely derives from the interests of the small number of people who have worked on it. In that context the best solution would be a massive expansion of the article. There are loads of sources on this topic. AndyJones (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the first contributor created an article that had a lot of material on the "criticism". This material was "edited out", which is obviously the complete opposite situation of what you assumed. See here. Nxavar (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Tags can't be kept in an article unless there is clear information on the talk page about the claimed problem. What text is misleading or missing? Why? What sources should be used? Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. So @Nxavar: are you arguing for the reintroduction of the material you have linked? Like @Johnuniq:, I'm a bit unclear what you think the bias is. Is it, for example, your firmly held view that Shakespeare is not a proto-feminist and that such a view should be represented in the article? If so, is that a debate that exists in the sources? My view, FWIW, remains that the article is not so much biased as underdeveloped, and that expanding it from reliable sources would swamp any bias you feel it now shows. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems sensible - there is a lot to say. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the neutrality tag could be removed and the unbalanced tag kept. The largest section is on 19th century criticism, which is less important to the reader than current criticism or the 16th/17th century context.

The history is 1) the article was written with references only for quotations in 2008. 2) It was nominated for deletion in 2008 and 2009. 3) The original content was removed and replaced with a smaller amount of sourced content during the 2009 deletion discussion. 4) Changes since 2009 are relatively minor. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Can any of the removed content be rehabilitated? Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It might be possible to rescue some of the 2008 content, but there is a risk of WP:Writing Wikipedia articles backward. I have looked for the original sources below. TSventon (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

2008 references

My comments on the original references are:

1.) “Shakespeare’s Women.” November 2001. Lewis, Liz. http://www.literature-study-online.com/essays/shakespeare_women.html Comment does not seem reliable

2.) “Shaping Fantasies. Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture”, Representations. No.2. Pgs 61-94. Spring 1983. Montrose, Louis Adrian. Comment online at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2928384 via Wikipedia library

3.) “Queen Victoria, Shakespeare, and the Ideal Women.” 2008. Folger Shakespeare Library. http://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=1792 Comment archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20100528094136/https://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=1792

4.) The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare, Second Edition. 2001. McDonald, Russ. Comment Patriarchy is on pages 255 to 259. It may be possible to see some pages at https://archive.org/details/bedfordcompanion0000mcdo (Book available to patrons with print disabilities). TSventon (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)