Wikipedia:Peer review/The Country Wife/archive1

The Country Wife

A comedy that's been offending right-thinking people since 1675. Comments on any level welcome, but I'm especially hoping for input from non-specialists at this time. I think it's pretty comprehensive (too much?), but is it boring? Is it clear? Is the background section helpful? Do sections come in a reader-friendly order? Is the "First performance" section too long? Please be frank, will pay cash for concrete and specific suggestions. (Never mind the footnotes, I know they're incomplete, they're on their way.) Bishonen | Talk 00:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's perfection what more can I say; but who are your audience, at whom are you pitching the article, this is a subject that needs to be understood against the culture of the day in which it was written, I think you have explained that climate well, but will he man in the Bronx or the "Hooray" in SW1? understand it, or even bother to read it - probably not, but you can't be all things too all people so it's fine - believe me. Giano 21:38, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much, compliments are indeed good too (more! more!), though I only pay cash for practical advice. Bishonen | Talk 19:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well then, here you go. As a complete outsider to Restoration comedy I have put this article to the layman test. My impression is most favourable, but I have a few minor points.

• Our 'Cuckold' article mentions that 'Cuckolds are sometimes written of as "wearing the horns of a cuckold" or just "wearing the horns". I would think that this apparent connection between Horner's name and his character is worth mentioning.
• Nearly all persons are properly introduced when they are first mentioned, which makes for pleasant reading, but Mrs. Squeamish, mentioned only once in the 'Key scenes' section, is not. Who is she?
• There are two seemingly important persons on the 1675 cast list that are not mentioned at all in the article: Mr. Dorilant and Mr. Sparkish. From online sources I gather that Dorilant is a friend of Horner; he doesn't seem to play an important role although he is present in many scenes. Mr. Sparkish apparently is 'someone Horner really does hold in aversion' [1] and he turns up in quite a few scenes; I think that his being affianced to Alithea, and their torpedoed marriage, would make him important enough to mention briefly. Another person not mentioned in the article is doctor Quack, but he seems not notable enough indeed.
• The article mentions that during the china scene, "Horner is purportedly discussing his china collection with several noble ladies". Only Lady Squeamish and Lady Fidget are involved, right? Somehow, 'several' gives me the impression that there are more than two ladies involved.

All in all, this is a fascinating article and I've learnt a lot of interesting things by reading it. Keep up the good work! — mark ✎ 10:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great job, Mark! I've been waiting since forever to input some interlined responses, here goes:

Our 'Cuckold' article mentions that 'Cuckolds are sometimes written of as "wearing the horns of a cuckold" or just "wearing the horns". I would think that this apparent connection between Horner's name and his character is worth mentioning.

See, that shows you in a nutshell how much I needed your help. It never occurred to me.

Nearly all persons are properly introduced when they are first mentioned, which makes for pleasant reading, but Mrs. Squeamish, mentioned only once in the 'Key scenes' section, is not. Who is she?

They're introduced...? See, I was unaware of that. Mr Squeamish doesn't have any personality or circumstances attached to her, actually, she's just Lady Fidget's friend who tags along, and who wants the same thing LF wants, sex with Horner--she's like a paler version of LF. It turns out that Mrs Squeamish has a grandmother--appearing in the china scene only--and that's the whole of her personal situatedness. I hadn't thought of it before, but it's quite remarkable how unsituated these characters are, all of them. Well, it's not remarkable for the period, it's normal, but it's odd to us today, who expect characters in plays to be more like characters in a novel. Hmm. Just call her "Lady Fidget's friend", I suppose? Actually she and the third lady, Mrs Dainty Fidget, wouldn't even have had names at the première, before the print version came out, because nobody addresses them by name.

There are two seemingly important persons on the 1675 cast list that are not mentioned at all in the article: Mr. Dorilant and Mr. Sparkish. From online sources I gather that Dorilant is a friend of Horner; he doesn't seem to play an important role although he is present in many scenes. Mr. Sparkish apparently is 'someone Horner really does hold in aversion' [1] (http://www.gashakespeare.org/history/1995/wife-synopsis.html) and he turns up in quite a few scenes; I think that his being affianced to Alithea, and their torpedoed marriage, would make him important enough to mention briefly. Another person not mentioned in the article is doctor Quack, but he seems not notable enough indeed.

No, right, Quack the doctor is more just a plot convenience, someone Horner tells his secrets to, so that we the audience get to know them. Sparkish gets a look in in "Plots", plot 3, but you mean the actor isn't mentioned? Indeed not, and that's a bit of a disaster, because he was notable all right: the comedian/clown Joseph Haines, probably the best-known of all the actors, and the biggest draw. Sparkish was a big part, too. It's kind of a boring part for the modern taste--well, mine, at least--just a regular caricatured affected fop, the fiancé who's destined to not get the girl. And he doesn't do anything for my argument, since famous Jo Haines was someone who did draw attention to the Harcourt-Alithea plot that I'm claiming was so unnoticable (part of my cunning plan for showing that it's quite wrong to "moralize" the play the way Norman Holland did), and so I didn't think to mention him (cough). Not realizing people might miss him, as you did (serious coughing attack). I must put in Jo Haines, absolutely, thanks for demonstrating it. I worry about the cast section getting too long, or it would be very nice to discuss Mrs Dainty Fidget and Mrs Squeamish and their actresses a bit also--actually do them before Dorilant, --but I keep feeling that the whole original cast thing is a bit of an idiosyncratic interest of my own, and should be kept trimmed, if not lifted out. It's not what you usually see in play articles (checking out some Shakespeare articles as I speak), and it's within shouting distance of original research. Can I ask you, Mark, did it seem at all out of place or unexpected to you, to have a section about the première performance? I could always just skip it, the article's long enough without it, and of course stage history and critical history could be enlarged ad libitum if desired, they're so compressed they hurt. Or, alternatively, do you think it's desirable to emphasize more that the first performance section speaks to Wycherley's composition process, as he was writing for these particular actors? (Or will it sound more like original research the more I emphasize that? you see how I go round and round on this. :-()

The article mentions that during the china scene, "Horner is purportedly discussing his china collection with several noble ladies". Only Lady Squeamish and Lady Fidget are involved, right? Somehow, 'several' gives me the impression that there are more than two ladies involved.

Lol, yeah, you're absolutely right, and not only that, but I think I do the same thing wrt the drinking scene--give a false impression of a milling crowd of ladies jostling for Horner (the magnetic Charles Hart). The fact is that the whole "virtuous gang" is just three ladies, and indeed only two of them are involved in the china scene, as you say. I must change the way I refer to Horner's ladies as a collective, but also make it clear that there is a general sense that there are other ladies (in the wings, so to speak) that we never hear about, and that there will be more ladies after the final curtain, too.

Thanks very much, Mark, for catching that stuff. I see with horror how confusing those items must have been, it's really great to have them caught. I've been trying to fix them in a text editor, lessee if I ever get to input either those emendations, or these replies. Meanwhile, enjoy the admin mop and bucket, congratulations! Bishonen | Talk 07:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To answer your questions, Bish: It is comprehensive without being overwhelming and it is not at all dull. It is clear. The background section is a real strength and I like the way that the article flows. No section is too long. I have added the Beerbohm anecdote to illustrate just how far the play fell from critical awareness; it needs to be placed more elegantly. --Theo (Talk) 14:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, Theo. I'm taking a shot at merging in the anecdote in a place where it'll be more illustrative, and also avoid the need for a separate section (thinking ahead, I feel that an section titled anecdoteS might risk inviting other contributors to twist it towards a "Trivia" section, a favorite FAC antipathy, and I'm not crazy about them myself either). But for that, could you please tell me what The Country Wench is? I've never heard of it. Bishonen | Talk 11:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What he said. I haven't much else to say (sorry for digging up Jo Haines :) ); the recent additions are great. To be clear, I very much like the section on the first performance, as it sort of 'grounds' the article for the reader who is not familiar with the historical context. So nothing is out of place; in fact, the article is in perfect balance. And no, there was nothing confusing about the article. It's just that I have a sharp eye when there's a chance to earn some pocket-money. Please contact me via email to arrange the cash payment. — mark ✎ 15:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool! I'm very glad it communicates, it's really impossible to tell, when you wrote the stuff yourself. Both you guys should get in touch with my accountant for settling of scores, in fact the chauffeur will take you there. See him? Burly chap carrying a sack of cement? Bishonen | Talk 11:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

fff