Talk:Waiting for Godot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 14:18, 1 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Waiting for Godot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Theatre High‑importance

	Theatre portal 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.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political / Continental Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Continental philosophy

Comedy High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 5, 2020.

What do the Philistines Think?

Waiting for Godot is the archetypical example of nonsense displacing sense in the 20th century. It forms a neat triangle, with nonsense painting (Picasso) and nonsense books (Finnegan's Wake) at the other corners. In the manner of a prosecuting attorney, I put it to the artistic community that the above items are no better than those random patterns within which the human mind often finds (due to ancient evolutionary pressures) some sort of illusory image or meaning. Having done so, there is then a battle, between differing interpretations, in which the only rule is never to suggest that everyone has been 'taken for a ride'. The item may then 'go viral' in the modern parlance and, particularly in the case of paintings, soon acquires a sky-rocketing monetary value which forever cements it firmly in place. I note that this cultural racket has already been neatly outed by H.C.Andersen (Emperor's New Clothes) and S.L.Clemens (The Royal Nonesuch), but is it not about time for a more robust attack to be made on this blatant artistic scam? A successful assault might even go viral. 78.145.10.148 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on....!!! El Mostarzo Perrito (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Talk header}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
-{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|meaning of life (philosophy)#Existentialist views|meaning of human existence}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|psyche (psychology)#Jung's definitions of "psyche" and "soul"|soul}}|m04}}
+{{WikiProject France|importance=mid}}
-{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Art|class=B}}
+{{WikiProject Theatre|importance=high}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
-{{WikiProject France|class=b|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|continental=yes|social=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Theatre|class=b|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject Comedy|importance=high}}
-{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=b|importance=low|continental=yes|social=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Comedy|class=B|importance=high}}
 }}
 {{OnThisDay|date1=2020-01-05|oldid1=934264399}}
+== What do the Philistines Think? ==
+Waiting for Godot is the archetypical example of nonsense displacing sense in the 20th century. It forms a neat triangle, with nonsense painting (Picasso) and nonsense books (Finnegan's Wake) at the other corners. In the manner of a prosecuting attorney, I put it to the artistic community that the above items are no better than those random patterns within which the human mind often finds (due to ancient evolutionary pressures) some sort of illusory image or meaning. Having done so, there is then a battle, between differing interpretations, in which the only rule is never to suggest that everyone has been 'taken for a ride'. The item may then 'go viral' in the modern parlance and, particularly in the case of paintings, soon acquires a sky-rocketing monetary value which forever cements it firmly in place. I  note that this cultural racket has already been neatly outed by H.C.Andersen (Emperor's New Clothes) and S.L.Clemens (The Royal Nonesuch), but is it not about time for a more robust attack to be made on this blatant artistic scam? A successful assault might even go viral. [[Special:Contributions/78.145.10.148|78.145.10.148]] ([[User talk:78.145.10.148|talk]]) 15:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
-== Plot Summary ==
-This plot summary is laden with interpretative snippets and quotes by Beckett.  Shouldn't those items go under interpretation and leave the plot summary as...well...just a plot summary?  [[Special:Contributions/207.237.199.62|207.237.199.62]] ([[User talk:207.237.199.62|talk]]) 03:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
-:Yup. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36|talk]]) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
+:Spot on....!!! [[User:El Mostarzo Perrito|El Mostarzo Perrito]] ([[User talk:El Mostarzo Perrito|talk]]) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
-::Agreed.  The whole thing reads like an essay some first year english lit major wrote about the play.  Arguably interesting but not very encyclopedic.  Not having looked at the edit history and just based on glancing through this discussion page it certainly does seem that someone simply wikified an essay- which now that I think about it is rather funny since that's often the opposite of how these things go.  The plot summary section, at the very least, needs a rewrite.  [[Special:Contributions/140.182.134.151|140.182.134.151]] ([[User talk:140.182.134.151|talk]])  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:::And a poor essay at that. The section of the Characters should be shortened, and all the unnecessary quotes, while interesting, should be removed, or at least modified. Half of the section of "Who is Godot?" consists of quotes. I wish I could change it, but will leave it to someone else. [[User:Ykerzner|Ykerzner]] ([[User talk:Ykerzner|talk]]) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
-:::: The Synopsis is not a Synopsis.   It's not a synopsis if it's several pages long.  seriously, lookup the word Synopsis in a dictionary.[[Special:Contributions/70.79.146.225|70.79.146.225]] ([[User talk:70.79.146.225|talk]]) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
-I rewrote the synopsis or plot summary, because it had been too elaborate, too full of unsourced interpretive comments.  It didn’t seem to have an encyclopedic style — it seemed overly witty and colorful.  It had also been complained of [above] in this section without dispute beginning in 2009.  So I trimmed it down to its bare bones.[[User:Hollarbohem|Hollarbohem]] ([[User talk:Hollarbohem|talk]]) 13:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
-:I don't agree with that wholesale surgery. If there was unencyclopedic writing (and your version is not faultless in this regard), that can be addressed. Taking the comments above which are >10 years old as justification for these cuts is inappropriate because the synopsis was then very different: [[Special:Permalink/355647050]]. In accordance with [[WP:BRD]], I'm going to restore the previous version. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
-::It seems to me that though the plot summary section has changed over time, it seems to have grown more ornate and elaborate.  The summary is not at all concise as it should be — it’s huge and massive.  Any definition of a play’s “plot” or “plot summary” shouldn’t include so many minor moments and descriptions.  I think the summary needs to be more considerate of the reader, or researcher, or student — who comes looking for information on the topic.  The reader is faced with these massive “plot summary” paragraphs about removing shoes and dozing off, etc.  The “narrator voice” in the summary seems (to me) to depict a witty story-teller — with too much [[MOS:INUNIVERSE|in-universe]] or novelistic personality.  An in-universe point-of-view contributes to the narration including a lot of interpretive commentary.  Colorful or novelistic words and phrases that don’t occur in the play are the plot-summary narrator’s contributions to narrative style and attempts to add in-universe context: The two are “bedraggled” companions.  An off-stage cry “heralds” an entrance.  Someone speaks “loftily”.[[User:Hollarbohem|Hollarbohem]] ([[User talk:Hollarbohem|talk]]) 17:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)