Talk:Characters of Shakespear's Plays

WikiProject Shakespeare assessment

I've added the project template with a rating as B-quality and Mid-importance. The quality is probably closer to GA than B, but as anything higher than B requires a process be followed I've set it accordingly. The priority for the project I've set to Mid, since the various articles on Shakespeare himself and on the plays there must take precedence. Please do feel free to change that if you disagree with my reasoning. --Xover (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Suggestions

In the first paragraphs of the Essays section:

To say that Hazlitt was apprenticed in the theatre is misleading, suggesting that he was an actor. He had a lifelong love of the theatre and worked for some years as a drama critic, but I wouldn't think of that as the same thing as being "apprenticed in the theatre".

I wouldn't mention Edmund Kean in this context. He was an actor by profession, and it is not likely he would have sided with Lamb and Hazlitt's belief that Shakespeare's plays are better read than viewed on stage.

You say that Hazlitt approved of Schlegel's method. It would help if you could briefly state what that method is. It is also true that Hazlitt disagreed with what he thought of as a "mystical" element in Schlegel's criticism, even though, yes, you are right, he thought highly of it for the most part.

"The purpose of the work is to study the form of tragedy." Only to a small degree. The purpose was to discuss all of the plays, with emphasis on the characters. Hazlitt believed that the tragedies were the greatest of the plays and the four you mention the best of those, as you say. But it is misleading to state simply that the purpose of Characters is to study the form of tragedy. Hazlitt doesn't even spend that much time considering dramatic form. --Alan W (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that in terms of expansion, Kean, Lamb, and Schlegel will each need their own paragraphs. That would fix the problem, no? Also, on the "form of tragedy" - I pulled that from Kinnaird. p. 173 and onwards "his overriding concern with tragedy", "Kean-inspired impetus of the book as a defense of Shakespeare's supremacy as a tragic dramatist", "Yet this statement of tragedy's moral power...", "Thus his fascination with the 'truth' of Shakespeare's mastery of 'passion' could still be felt as one with a faith in the transfiguring beneficence of tragedy...", etc. And the "apprentice in theatre" should have said theatre criticism. It could be further elaborated as Kinnaird does to say that he did so by attending plays. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe separate paragraphs. It's a matter of separating and clarifying the ideas expressed. Clarifying, for example, that you don't mean that the book is only about tragedy or only about the dramatic form of tragedy. As for Kean, yes, Kean inspired Hazlitt in some ways; again, that inspiration just has to be distinguished from the belief that Hazlitt shared with Lamb, that Shakespeare's plays are experienced to the fullest by reading them, not by seeing them on stage. If Kean had anything to do with that idea, perhaps it was by reminding Hazlitt that, as good as Kean was, even he could not always rise to the demands of certain characters and situations. I think Kinnaird intimates as much on pp. 172-73. Anyhow, I will read on, and comment more later. --Alan W (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Coriolanus

It's late here and I haven't time to comment much today. I will focus on one sentence:

"As he was treating the work with such an analysis, he slowly became a Whig in political terms and began to accept the monarchial governmental form; to Hazlitt, the problem was not the monarchy but corrupt ministers taking advantage of monarchs."

This assertion needs to be set in perspective by a broader view of Hazlitt's thinking on the subject. To Hazlitt, in most instances, monarchy was the problem. Hazlitt detested the idea of absolute monarchy, showing nothing but contempt for most kings. Of hereditary kings, he wrote: "Any one above the rank of an ideot is supposed capable of exercising the highest functions of royal state." —"What Is the People?" (The Champion, 1817). "We make kings of men, and Gods of stocks and stones.... We only want a peg or loop to hang our idle fancies on, a puppet to dress up...." —"On the Spirit of Monarchy" (The Liberal, 1823). He did grudgingly accept the governmental form of constitutional monarchy, however. In the same essay, "A constitutional king ... is a servant of the public, a representative of the people's wants and wishes, dispensing justice and mercy according to law.... All power is but an unabated nuisance, a barbarous assumption, an aggravated injustice, that is not directed to the common good." --Alan W (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about using the later works in that section. Perhaps down in the theme section? I would hate to retroactively apply his works back on it. I've only had a few instances of that, and that was only when he said something on Shakespeare and a source used it. If a source doesn't apply the later works, then it would be a problem with original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"What Is the People?" is not a "later work." It first appeared in 1817, the same year that Characters was published. But I didn't mean to suggest that you cite these specific works. The quotations just provide examples of Hazlitt's views on monarchy. I have never seen anyone, least of all Hazlitt himself, say that to him, the problem was not the monarchy but corrupt ministers.--Alan W (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Another sentence: "The character Coriolanus needs to be played in an aristocratic manner, and actors failed in portraying Coriolanus correctly because of their own republican sympathies." Edmund Kean seemed to give a republican interpretation of Coriolanus, but John Kemble had not, and Hazlitt thought him more suitable for the role, as pointed out by Bromwich, p. 318. Hazlitt is talking only about the different ways Kemble and Kean played the role (plebeian vs. aristocrat), not actors with republican sympathies in general. --Alan W (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Was the original spelled without the "e" at the end of Shakespeare's name? :)--Thecurran (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The article uses variable spellings here. Without the e appears to have been the original spelling, but it also seems to have been normalized to include the e in later editions. One example I found appeared to be the third edition edited by Hazlitt's son; but this could also have been a later imposition. Ottava, can you clarify here? --Xover (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I notice Hazlitt inscribes the book to Charles Lamb. Is this worth a brief mention in this article somewhere? Do the relevant sources mention Lamb in connection with the subject of this article? --Xover (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only were Lamb and Hazlitt close friends for over twenty-five years, more to the point here is that Hazlitt agreed with Lamb that Shakespeare's plays were best when read rather than viewed on stage, and Lamb was a specialist in the literature of the Elizabethan period; Hazlitt greatly respected Lamb for that. My feeling is that, yes, it would be good if mention of this inscription could somehow be worked logically into the article. There must be something in a secondary source relevant to this matter. --Alan W (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Immediate review uses the spelling. 2nd edition uses the spelling. Edinburgh Review immediately afterward did not. Shakespeare had something like 36 possible ways of spelling his name. Just be happy that only two show up. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right. The spelling "Shakespeare" was not really fully established until later years. In Hazlitt's day the dramatist's name was still often spelled differently, depending on publishers' differing house rules. The first edition of the book this article is about definitely spelled it "Shakespear". As you (Ottava Rima) say, the contemporary Edinburgh Review, in its review of Hazlitt's book, spelled it "Shakespeare", which happens to be the spelling that stuck. --Alan W (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan, I know my speculation and some that I've read, but do you know if it was done for political reasons? I've heard ideas behind it, but it would be interesting if you knew of anything off hand that was more definitive than just a few idle academics theorizing over the differences at the time (especially knowing the background of the Edinburgh Review vs, say, London reviews that referred to Shakespeare in other ways). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am no expert on the evolution of English orthography. But I doubt that the Edinburgh Review differed from the printer or publishers of Characters in political leanings or from Hazlitt himself in that regard. The editor of the Edinburgh was Francis Jeffrey, whose choice I am assuming it was to spell the name "Shakespeare". He and Hazlitt generally respected each other and were mostly on the same side politically. So I doubt that politics had anything to do with the difference of spelling. --Alan W (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean ER vs Hazlitt, but more of Scotland vs London. The Scots had a strange habit of slipping in key spelling differences. But yeah, just seems to be speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point about Scotland vs. London. Could be. But, as you say, without anything to back up our ideas, it's just speculation. --Alan W (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Macbeth

Except for some awkwardness in phrasing, which can always be smoothed out at a later time, the Hamlet and Lear sections seem fine to me. For the most part, so does the Macbeth. Since I am commenting on what I think are the larger issues at this time, however, I will quote one sentence here that I think is a problem. You (Ottava Rima, for those who haven't been following this discussion) wrote: "Before Hazlitt, Macbeth was seen as a crude play that lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character." You cite Kinnaird in support of this statement. But Kinnaird doesn't really say this. He says, "...perhaps none of Shakespeare's tragedies had been more often accused pf 'Gothic' crudity and barbarism." Kinnaird says nothing about prior criticism of the contradictions in Macbeth's character, just that the play had been often seen as crude and barbaric. The criticism of contradictions in Macbeth's character do, however, enter into Kinnaird's discussion when he notes that (Elmer Edgar) Stoll did make such a criticism of contradictions in Macbeth's character. But Stoll was writing in 1933! Kinnaird points out that, in Hazlitt's insistence on the underlying identity of Macbeth's character, it is as if he were anticipating Stoll's criticism and responding to it. So I think you have to revise your statement, which attributes this criticism of Macbeth's character to a time before Hazlitt, when it was really made more than a century later. --Alan W (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was basing the statement off of what Kinnaird says Hazlitt's defense was in the lines that followed after. You cannot defend something unless there were attacks on it. Kinnaird states: "We may best follow the line of Hazlitt's defense if we remind ourselves that the issues of the play's credibility is by no means dead today", which suggests that the ideas used by Stoll are the same statements Hazlitt was defending against because Stoll is using a very old argument. Does that make sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Hazlitt was arguing against some previous contention that the play was not very believable, yes. But I still also think that to assert specifically that there were contentions that the play lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character is going a little further than your source warrants. Kinnaird very pointedly brings in Stoll as the advocate of that idea, and that was much later. It may be that Hazlitt himself took note of the seeming contradictions in Macbeth's character and then shows that Shakespeare's genius was to preserve the character's unity among all its extremes. However that may be, I do not believe that you should state flat out that "Macbeth was seen as a crude play that lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character." Can you find an earlier source that says that? Johnson? Coleridge? Then fine, cite that source. But Kinnaird does not quite say that. --Alan W (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at Hazlitt's chapter on "Macbeth" again. Even without Kinnaird's statements, Hazlitt's own commentary seems to support the idea only that the play was thought of before him as crude and Gothic. He himself points to Macbeth's character, to how Macbeth's actions result in part from his reaction to circumstances, and to how his character yet retains its essential unity. "The leading features in the character of Macbeth are striking enough, and they form what may be thought of at first only a bold, rude, Gothic outline. By comparing it with other characters of the same author we shall perceive the absolute truth and identity which is observed in the midst of the giddy whirl and rapid career of events." At this point, I don't think we have any definite sources that would support anyone before Hazlitt criticizing the play because there are contradictions in Macbeth's character—or anyone after Hazlitt either, until Stoll. If Hazlitt is defending his idea, the only thing we can see for sure is that it is against anyone's thinking that the character is not a unified one; but no one before then is pointed to as actually having said that much in such a specific way. --Alan W (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinnaird's wording was very clear that Stoll was using the same arguments as those who Hazlitt responded against. However, I will remove the word because I would rather not argue over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can't take it out - Kinnaird relies on the above in order to introduce why Hazlitt is defending against "contradictions" in Macbeth. The Hazlitt quote that follows is what Kinnaird is referring to and can only be understood by explaining why Hazlitt is talking about it. Not discussing this as Kinnaird put it would remove the ability to discuss Macbeth at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What Kinnaird says: "There was good cause for Hazlitt to be concerned with Macbeth 's unity; for perhaps none of the Shakespeare's tragedies had been more often accused of 'Gothic' crudity and barbarism. We may best follow the line of Hazlitt's defense if we remind ourselves that the issue of the play's credibility is by no means dead today; the issue has reappeared in Stoll's celebrated contention that the essential paradox in Macbeth—that so good and noble a man should become a murderer and a butchering tyrant—makes sense only as theatre, not as 'nature' or 'life'."

The words "by no means dead today" and "reappeared" are Kinnaird stating that contradictions aspect was used as a criticism.

The words "by no means dead today" are taken out of context. The context is that "the issue of the play's credibility is by no means dead today...." I grant that it is possible that the contradictions in Macbeth's character were already being seen as something less than credible. I just don't think that Kinnaird places more weight on contradictions in Macbeth's character than on other aspects of the play taken as lacking credibility—except in his forward-looking reference to Stoll. --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kinnaird then explains, "There is, to be sure, a 'contradictory principle' at work throughout the play; but the contradictoriness of its sudden 'transitions,' whereby 'every passion brings in its fellow-contrary,' must be seen in the context of a primitive and violent world 'at the farthest bounds of nature,' where 'the action is desperate and the reaction is dreadful.'"

The quote from Hazlitt following the summary by Kinnaird is drawn from what Kinnaird says is Hazlitt's response to the argument Stoll puts forth, and Kinnaird states that Hazlitt is almost prophetic because his words directly match up and contradict Stoll's.

Yet, it is also possible to interpret Kinnaird as implying that no one before Hazlitt had specifically pointed to contradictions in Macbeth's character to the extent that Hazlitt did here. I think that critics of drama in the eighteenth century were more concerned about violations of the Aristotelian classical unities. (Kinnaird mentions that too, but not in the sentence that we are arguing about. You include that above to support your argument, yet it does not appear in your writing about Macbeth; if it did, I would have less reason to complain.) If someone before Hazlitt had specifically pointed out contradictions in Macbeth's character, Kinnaird would have no need to look forward a century for a full exposition of the thesis that Hazlitt appears to argue against. You argue as well as one could, I think, in favor of your point. Yet, my own feeling is that it is still a stretch to say flat out: "Before Hazlitt, Macbeth was seen as a crude play that lacked credibility because of the contradictions in Macbeth's character." It was seen as lacking credibility in a number of ways, including violation of the unities, its barbarism, and so on, and maybe contradictions in character are implied as part of that in Kinnaird's statement, but to make that bald a statement about it, to my mind, does not convey the the full sense of Kinnaird's argument. Well, maybe this is yet another of those areas where we will have to "agree to disagree". --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC

I would rather not have to agree to disagree - I would like a compromise. I will try to dig up some stuff on Johnson (as I worked on the pages related to him and he was one of the key figures in mind when Hazlitt was criticizing the previous Shakespeare critics) and see if Johnson is explicit in saying there is a contradiction. I just want the Hazlitt quote to work its way in. If you can find a different way to preface/lead into the quote, then please do. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is any further question on the matter, I can either send Duncan Wu an email or just go across town and visit his office and ask him about his perspective on what the passage means. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be very interested to hear Wu's take on this matter. If he should choose to invite the two of us to discuss this over a beer (I think you get my allusion :-) I would try to make it. I live only a few hundred miles away and it might be possible for me to get down there over a weekend. --Alan W (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll email him when I have a chance. I do not know if he is in town yet (the semester has not yet started). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems to work. Good job. See, I am glad I forced you to stick around and help. :) Before we know it, this article of ours could be FA level. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Merchant of Venice

The matter here is right on target, and gives an accurate idea of Hazlitt's concerns, but I'm thinking that the manner of presenting it could use some work. It's a matter of general organization. I would start with the older, traditional view of Shylock; then proceed to Kean's revolutionary reinterpretation of that character and Hazlitt's championing of Kean's interpretation; and only then to a statement of Hazlitt's focus in Characters, with the extract from it quoted. --Alan W (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of a similar thing when I was writing the articles. However, I did not know how much "background" I wanted to provide. Should we start such sections with a paragraph, perhaps 6-7 sentences, that describes the previous views? We could also limit it to sections like this where the revision of the character is important (as Shylock was a major reinterpretation). If we rework it, I would suggest taking the first sentence of the second paragraph and using it as a first sentence of a new paragraph that then goes into the previous views. Then follow it with a statement saying Hazlitt split from the traditional view and that will lead into the second paragraph. The long quote would be moved down as a third paragraph. The fourth would then talk about the ramifications of Hazlitt's support of Kean. That way we have past, immediate past, Hazlitt, and after Hazlitt separated into four different sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Something along these lines would probably be fine for this section, and I will keep your suggestions in mind when I try to rework it (not right now, as I want to finish reading the whole article first). I'm not sure that this scheme should necessarily be applied everywhere. But definitely some food for thought here. --Alan W (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Othello

Another case where it's mostly fine. Just a few things need to be tweaked, I think. For example, you start by saying, "The Othello essay is written with the intent to allow the audience to identify with the character Othello." Well, in part, but I think he also wants the audience to identify with other characters. Again, "Hazlitt refused to connect the characters within the plays to Shakespeare as a poet." In some sense that is true, but he does make the connection in pointing out what Keats would later call Shakespeare's "negative capability" (and Keats was greatly influenced by Hazlitt's thinking about this kind of thing, as you probably know). Something about Shakespeare's ability to put himself into the minds of others better than any other poet comes up a number of times in Hazlitt's writing. This is still connecting the poet to his characters in some way. Kinnaird or Bromwich or both say something about Hazlitt's pointing to great poets' (especially Shakespeare's) abilities to connect the reader's imagination with that of the poet himself by means of imaginatively embodied characters—something like that (it's very late here, and this is from memory). Not saying any of what I am remembering vaguely here should be used in any detail or even specifically, but I am just suggesting a direction to take in making some revisions. Again, I will do it after a while if no one else does first. --Alan W (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of that section is choppy and should be rewritten. If you want to have a go, feel free. As for the Keats part - I was wondering if Negative Capability should be mentioned. Unfortunately, it is looking forward, which would be problematic. However, it could be okay if we break it down and say something like Keats later clarified the idea and titled it "negative capability" or something to that effect. Anyway, I understand exactly what you mean. If you have a proposal for a reword feel free. My brain is unable to come up with a good way to phrase it right now (too many reviews at GAN and FAC to think about one of the most complex poetic concepts). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, just suggesting a general direction; no absolute need to use the actual term "negative capability". But we'll see. Right now, while you and Xover, as your GA reviewer, are looking at specific sentences and so on, I'm still trying to absorb the article in a more general way and set down further suggestions as I've been doing. --Alan W (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There could be a section on influence - ramifications of various ideas and concepts. There can easily be three or four paragraphs built on the various influences with a paragraph devoted to Keats's use of Hazlitt in the idea of "negative capability" (as the concept did shape literary criticism from the 1960s onward with Bate's analysis). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling now that anything about Keats and negative capability, while we shouldn't rule it out, should remain for now on a back burner. As you mentioned earlier, it's a somewhat complicated topic, and, also, we don't want to go off on a tangent. The most important thing now is to convey what is significant about this particular book. And I'm still mulling over all of that, even reading more to get some background, to the extent that I can. --Alan W (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering...

As usual, Ottava, you're working like a house afire, now that this is up for GA. :-) I noticed that in Background, you changed "pirated" to "unlicensed". Why? "Pirated" is the stronger word, it is perfectly correct here and in common English usage, and, more to the point in this context, that is exactly the way Duncan Wu, your source, says it: "It went to a second edition in 1818, and later that year was pirated by Wells and Lilly in Boston...." (p. 212). --Alan W (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone was going around literature articles and changing pirated to unlicensed and then attacking the creators of the page for using the term. That person was doing that at multiple GAs. I wanted to preempt that individual so that he does not "destabilize" the page via a edit war. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I understand. Well, I guess I can live with "unlicensed" for now. We have bigger fish to fry, or some such appropriate expression. :^) --Alan W (talk)

Others

The one glaring omission that occurs to me as I read this section is the complete absence of the character of Falstaff. Neither of the Henry IV plays nor The Merry Wives of Windsor is so much as mentioned here, and they are most remarkable, to Hazlitt at least, as containing the character of Falstaff. Kinnaird calls his "six-page sketch of Falstaff" a "masterpiece". Falstaff is barely mentioned in another context in the section "Themes", and even then only in a direct quote of Hazlitt's text, but not here. Maybe there should even be a separate section on the plays he appears in. --Alan W (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find enough information to really go into Falstaff. If you think that you can put together two or three paragraphs on him, please feel free. I agree that he and others should be mentioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. It's on my to-do list, along with reorganizing the Othello section (though I haven't looked at it today, and I see that you have been furiously working at making modifications for GA purposes, so I don't know what it looks like now—actually, it now seems that you have not touched that section in a while). Just be aware that (I say this in view not only of what I've directly responded to, but after noticing talk about FA nomination) I do not seem to have nearly as much time to spare for this as you and Xover do. I am enthusiastic about contributing to make this the best article possible, but, as the old expression goes, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. I am very busy with work, and in addition have numerous personal matters to attend to in my life these days. This is a welcome respite from the turmoil, but, still, the fact remains that I have only so much time to spare. --Alan W (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Five minutes here or there, casual glances, or anything really is more than enough. Don't feel too obligated. Plus, you have already aided quite a bit so you will be involved in the whole process by default. There is no time constraint for this. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Themes

A lot of good stuff in here. But I think there is a bit too much, and it is somewhat repetitive and could be boiled down and here and there modified somewhat. Kinnaird and Bromwich's ideas about this book, as about Hazlitt's thought in general, are very subtle, and I'm still trying to grasp much of what they say. Maybe I can make a few changes once I do, to the extent I can. --Alan W (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Characters of Shakespear's Plays/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A very well written and suitably broad article. I'll add detailed comments below in a little while. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Below are some suggestions for how to further improve the article. Note that I have not checked the citations.

General

• While the article is scrupulous about keeping straight whether it is referring to a character, a play, or an essay (e.g. Othello vs. Othello vs. "Othello"), this is quite hard to keep straight for the reader. I would suggest trying to avoid referring to the chapter titles by name in favour of phrasing such as “…the essay on Othello”. It'll be a bit tedious and repetitive, but I think it'll lessen the burden on the reader.
• Several places in the article you use “within” to mean “in”. The former connotes “inside” (vs. “outside”) with a much stronger emphasis than is merited to indicate the particular essay that addresses the point in question. I would generally suggest you just use “in” instead. I've noted a couple specific instances below, but it's probably more efficient if you just do a search for the word and replace as you think appropriate.
• There are several quite long runs of quotes that are presented inline. Quotes longer than a sentence or two should be given as blockquotes for clarity.
• There are several places in the article where it's not made clear that the “speaker” is Hazlitt. It is inferable from context, but can get a little confusing at times. I would suggest giving it a read-through with an eye to finding these and inserting stuff like “Hazlitt argued” or “In Hazlitt's view”, so it's clear we're explaining Hazlitt's position and not making statements of fact.
• The order of the sections on Coriolanus, Hamlet, Lear, and Macbeth could stand some consideration. One is the first essay on a tragedy, one is Hazlitt's favourite, and one stands out as groundbreaking. Hamlet actually seems misplaced in there; and Lear and Macbeth made me pause and wonder why they hadn't appeared earlier in the article.
• The article uses a lot of direct quotes, which tends to give it the feel of an essay itself. I'm quite fond of copious quotes myself, but I would suggest using them more as “illustrations” supplementing an explanation of their contents and interpretation in normal prose. Letting Hazlitt speak for himself to this extent starts running close to that uncomfortable gray area near WP:OR and WP:RS.
• There is a tendency to use monster-length sentences. These should probably be broken up, ruthlessly. Except as noted below, these are not critical for GAC; but should probably be addressed before going to FAC.
• I get the feeling that this article is broad rather than comprehensive, and that there is more that can beneficially be said. However, since the criteria at GAC is precisely broad and not comprehensive, that's entirely as it should be. :-)
• Most of the comments below are about copy-editing. While generally very well written, I would recommend some serious copy-editing to address issues like overlong sentences and needlessly complicated language.

• 1. - I think I cleared up any ambiguity about the use of names. I added "character" to most instances of a use of character. I also added "essay" and followed the title in quotes and removed all instances of "essay on play" (replacing them with "essay 'play'"). 2. I think I fixed most instances. 3. I dropped a mention about possible MoS problems with that. 4. I think I've clarified many instances of this. 5. Right now it is alphabetized because it was easier for me to find the articles. They can be switched - possibly to follow the order Hazlitt published them. 6. All direct quotes are used by the critics that either preceded the quote or followed the quote. All arguments are followed as presented in secondary sources. I never introduce an idea from a primary source or a non-directly related source unless a critic has done so first (see the Background section of Christopher Smart's asylum confinement for an example of this - it follows Keymer's argument and use of the sources). 7. The discussion on Antony and Cleopatra could probably be made into its own section along with an addition of a discussion on Falstaff (the book sources only mention it in general terms or in passing). This history plays also lack major representation. I have to get a chance to go through journal articles before I can get enough information to build three or four paragraphs on them, since the ones with sections right now tend to be the ones most critics focus on. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

 Done

• The images check out for obvious problems such as source and license. No fair-use images, and several of the images are featured.
• The “portrait” layout pictures should have the “upright” parameter applied, to make the sizing work also for “landscape” layout pictures (otherwise, when the portrait images are “just right” the landscape ones will be too small to make out).
• The Others section is somewhat drowning in images. There are fairly large blocks of text before and, especially, after it; which makes this section look a bit overwhelmed. It would probably be a good idea to spread these out a little.
• The Critical response section could do with some images. Perhaps there are pictures available of one of the critics that are quoted?

• Fixes - I could not figure out the code for the portrait and landscaping that you were suggesting above. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, just adding "|upright" among the other image parameters ("|thumb", "|right", etc.) should do it. The short version is that it makes those images smaller (by about 20%); but, more relevant, it makes the images that are taller than wide ("portrait" layout) be, relatively speaking, the same size as those images that are wider than they are tall ("landscape" layout). Without it the images have different relative sizes. Anyways, I've added it in this diff—along with blowing up the lead picture a bit—but do feel free to revert if you don't like it.
  Anyways, the article's use of pictures looks much more balanced now. Nice work. --Xover (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede

 Done

• Characters of Shakespear's Plays is an 1817 collection of 34 essays by William Hazlitt. — This is needlessly ambiguous. I would suggest recasting along the lines of “…is a collection of 34 essays by William Hazlitt published in 1817.”, which avoids the mental grouping “1817 collection” and has the happy side-effect of putting greater distance between the two numbers.
• Collections of reviews were rare at the time, and Hazlitt's publication of the work with his name on the title page … — I don't quite get what the two clauses of this sentence have to do with one another. Is it trying to say something like “they were rare, but since it was by Hazlitt it sold anyway”?
• …Hazlitt's publication of the work with his name on the title page suggests Hazlitt's popularity before publication. — While I understand what is meant by this, it takes a little cognitive juggling to get there. Perhaps it can be recast to say that his name was a selling point directly?
• The second edition was not as fortunate as the first; Hazlitt blamed its failure on a bad review by the politically motivated Quarterly Review. — While these two clauses are entirely logical and consistent (so I gather from the article text), there isn't any indication here as to what the relationship between them are. Is it “, but Hazlitt blamed”? “, and Hazlitt blamed”? Provided the sources actually support that, I think it would be better here (in the lede) to simply say that it didn't sell as well because of the review, and leave Hazlitt's complaint of it to the relevant section of the article. Alternately, you could simply replace the semicolon with a full stop: the flow would be a little abrupt and choppy, but you'd avoid the awkward transition between the two clauses.
• …that was established by such earlier critics as Samuel Johnson. — moving the “such” after “critics” seems to flow better to me.
• Following Charles Lamb, Hazlitt argues … — The word following, here, connotes a relationship along the lines of apprenticeship for me (which I'm assuming is wrong). Perhaps “Taking his lead from” or “Agreeing with” or some such would work better?
• … argues for the understanding of characters as entities within the plays instead of generic types. — This isn't really clear to me here, and doesn't become clear to me while reading the article. Is the argument between the character as a (fictional) human being (with depth and dimension) and the character as a generic Archetype? The terminology used to describe this seems to either be a somewhat vague lay explanation, or some specialist terminology that is never explained to the reader. Is there some way these concepts can be made clearer?
• Of the plays, Hazlitt places particular emphasis on Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello, declaring them the four most important Shakespeare tragedies. — Perhaps a semicolon before the last clause? And the first clause can be deleted without affecting meaning or readability. Unless the phrasing is intended to suggest that Hazlitt covers the poems, and that it is relevant to distinguish between what he emphasized among those versus the plays, that the emphasised plays represent a subset of the plays is a given.
• … Shakespeare uses passion to drive characters to tragic moment … — I don't understand what “drive to tragic moment” means. Is there an article missing? A plural suffix?
• … Shakespeare uses passion to drive characters to tragic moment and revealing aspects about humanity as he does. — The tenses seem odd here. Should “revealing” perhaps be “to reveal” or “reveals”?
• Many of his essays contain Hazlitt's groundbreaking analysis of various plays. — Do some of them not contain Hazlitt's analysis? Or is it merely not groundbreaking in some of them? Perhaps “Many of his essays contain analysis that was groundbreaking.”?
• Within "Coriolanus"… — “In” would be perfectly adequate here. “Within” seems to emphasise “inside” far more than is merited.
• …he argues against the idea that poetry should be used to shape humanity, as such an attribute can only bring about greater problems. — I'm not sure something shaping humanity and an attribute of humanity are equivalent concepts. Can perhaps “such an attribute” simply be replaced by “it”?
• …even characters traditionally seen as base or weak should be acknowledged as having a just cause. — Is the point regarding their cause, or should the sentence end with something like “…as having redeeming qualities”? Perhaps it's my temporally provincial eyes, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient contrast between “base or weak” and “just cause” to explain why this is called out.
• Within "King Lear", — Ditto of the above (“within” vs. “in”).
• … tragedy merges the strengths and weaknesses of the characters in order to be successful… — Unclear: is it the tragedy or the character that uses those to be successful?
• …an individual's strength … used against them… — Since we're giving Othello as the single example here, using “him” instead of the artificially gender-neutral and plural “them” might be better.

• Fixes - I took some of the suggestions and went further on others. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

 Done

• Hazlitt was a writer of theatrical reviews starting in 1813. — Wouldn't it be simpler to just say he started writing theatrical reviews in 1813? That it was his occupation can be left implicit.
• Before it was printed, the book was bought by Hazlitt's friend… — It seem a little odd that it's the book that's performing the action in this sentence. Perhaps recast such that Hazlitt's friend buys, rather then the book being bought?
• A notice ran in the Edinburgh Review along with the future book being promoted by word of mouth during the spring of 1817. — This reads a bit awkward. Perhaps recast so the book is promoted by a notice in the Review as well as word of mouth? As it stands it doesn't quite connect the notice and the word of mouth.
• …the future book… — It's not necessary to specify that the book is “future” here; it's clear from the context. Rather, if left in it may suggest it's referring to a sequel or something.
• Charles and James Ollier — Perhaps move these two earlier in the sentence, or explain why there is a distinction between them and Rowland Hunter? Did the latter publish and the former sell it? The sentence does not make this clear above giving the titles for these people.
• The works openly state their authorship by Hazlitt, which verifies his popularity as a theatre critic at the time. — Why would he not “openly state” his authorship? Unless there is a popular theory that Edward de Vere wrote Hazlitt's essays—:-)—this doesn't appear to make sense. Was there a tradition of publishing such works anonymously? Under a pen name? Also, “verifies” just sounds like the author trying to sneak WP:OR past: would perhaps “suggests” or “indicates” or “illustrates” be better options? Incidentally, I have a rule of thumb that says any time an article contains the word “stated”, warning bells should be going off. Call it environmentally damaged from popculture articles or something, but unless the word is in the sense “a (nation) state” or in the form “a statement”, I just shudder whenever I see it.
• The work was to become so successful… — No need for the future tense here: “The work was so successful…”
• The work was to become so successful that a second edition was soon called for while it was rare for critical reviews to be published as books. — “While” does not really work to connect the two clauses here: it reads more like contrastive (“but”) than temporal (“during”). Perhaps replace it with “at a time when”?
• Is there a comma missing after Examiner in the last sentence of this section?

• Fixes - Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Essays

 Done

• Hazlitt was connected to theatre and apprenticed in theatre criticism by attending plays throughout his life. — This sentence is really awkward and jumping all over the place. Unfortunately I don't have any real ideas for how to improve it. Maybe the problem is that it tries to do too many things at once, and would benefit from simply splitting it into two or even three separate sentences?
• In Characters of Shakespear's Plays, he sought to describe his view of Shakespeare that was grounded in the interpretation of characters by actors, particularly Edmund Kean, along with the philosophy of play reading held by Charles Lamb. — The “play reading” is expanded on in the next sentence, but the view of Shakespeare is crammed into this sentence directly. Perhaps rip out the “that was grounded in…” bit and instead explain it in a following sentence? Perhaps even split the view of Shakespeare and the “play reading” into entirely separate sentences?
• Lamb argues… — This can with benefit be made past tense (“argued”).
• …dulls the characters until the audience is unable to perceive the true attributes of a character… — Two “characters” a bit close together. Replace the latter with “its”?
• … bring about the imagination. — Hmm. One brings about a ship, or a transition, or… Perhaps “grasp the imagination”, “tickle the imagination”, or some other such more idiomatic use?
• The problem with the theatre to Hazlitt… — “for Hazlitt”? “Hazlitt view the problem…”?
• the theatre itself and the audience that filled the theatre — Repetition of “theatre”. Replace the latter instance with “it”?
• Another problem is…” — Here you switch tense, so that this sentence seems to be the article's author speaking. I think using past tense in place of present tense would make it clear that it's Hazlitt speaking.
• August Wilhelm Schlegel's Lectures on Drama. — A brief indication of what this work is (its significance in the context) would be helpful to the reader not familiar with it.
• The essays are prefaced with a statement in which Hazlitt approved… — Here the tense switches from present (“are”) to past (“approved”). I'd suggest keeping the present tense and correct “approved” to “approves”.
• in terms of types instead of individuals — “as individuals”?
• he especially emphasizes the character within Shakespeare's dramas — Should character be plural?
• The last paragraph of this section is in present tense while the rest of it is in past tense. I don't consider that particularly a problem, but I imagine it will be brought up at FAC. You may want to consider whether and what to do about it before then.

• Fixed - Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Coriolanus

 Done

• …Edmund Burke's Reflections… — This could use a brief explanation.
• As he was treating the work with such an analysis, he slowly became… — Is “as” here intended to convey time or causality? i.e. did he become a Whig because he treated the work with such an analysis, or while he treated the work &c.?
• the monarchial governmental form — This sounds really odd. Can it be recast? Perhaps simply “monarchy as a form of government”?
• keep up an imaginative continuity — Should this be “imaginary”? “Imaginative” seems a lot to ask of the people. :-)
• was not to be done — This reads like “But, alas, it was not to be.” Perhaps “should” would work better?
• continuity … be done — Is a continuity something one does?
• and this comes out in his essay about — “Comes out” feels a bit colloquial. Shines through? Is evident?
• Coriolanus responds to his banishment by society… — I would change that “by” to from for clarity, and to mirror the later “from” in the turnaround later in the sentence.
• … within the play… — That it happens within the play is clear since we're talking about one of its characters, so that bit can be simply dropped.
• As Hazlitt was to later write in his… — “As Hazlitt later wrote” is a simpler way of putting it.
• As Hazlitt was to later write … should be "delivered… — Is there an “it” missing before “should” here? And what does “it” refer to; the role, or some speech?
• best of prey — Whose typo is this? (i.e. should it be corrected or marked with {{sic}})?

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet

 Done

• previous critics to Hazlitt claim — It is sufficient with “previous critics”; Hazlitt is called out both previous and immediately following this sentence, so it's clear from context.
• The essay also emphasizes Shakespeare's ability to evoke sympathy from the audience towards Hamlet within the play. — We don't really need to specify that it's within the play. “The essay also emphasizes Shakespeare's ability to evoke sympathy towards for Hamlet from the audience.
• The revisions between the two include adding in and an introductory section… — Is the “and” extraneous here?
• There is also an addition of Hazlitt describing…” — “where Hazlitt describes”?

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

King Lear

 Done

• and the end results in chaos that results in both the good and the bad dying. — The end results? Should this be the ending? And the two “results” are confusing.

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Macbeth

 Done

• Lady Macbeth contrasts with Macbeth as she is firm in the actions as her husband reacted against the murder. — This sentence doesn't make sense. Should the last “as” be a “where(as)”?

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Merchant of Venice

 Done

• Portrayals previous to Hazlitt's essay emphasized only the bad aspects of Shylock, and audiences applauded this depiction. — Which depiction; Hazlitt's or the previous?
• The immediate affect of Hazlitt's early argument in support of Kean's portrayal was… — Effect vs. affect?
• Other critics argue… — Switched tense again (from past to present).

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Othello

 Done

• The Othello essay is written with the intent to allow the audience to identify with the character Othello. — Apart form the awkward repetition of “Othello”, this statement of Hazlitt's intent in writing the essay makes me a little uncomfortable. Can it be phrased a way that preserves the meaning but doesn't bring to mind Wikipedia editors performing necromantic rituals and mind-reading? :-)
• Great tragedy, to Hazlitt, contains what Hazlitt calls… — The second “Hazlitt” should be “he”.
• The last paragraph of this section seems to have been insufficiently digested, or at least it doesn't flow well. I'm left with a feeling that the author is making a counter-argument to his sources (the last sentence). I think this would benefit from attacking it again with a clearer goal of what you want the paragraph to communicate; what is the point you're trying to get across here.

• Fixes. I tried reworking the final paragraph somewhat - it can be removed as it is a minor point. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, much better now. --Xover (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Tempest

 Done

• Caliban's cause is also just and the play involving this theme even in scenes that lack him as an active character — Is the “play” bit in the middle of that sentence a leftover from a previous reworking? I can't quite make out what this sentence is trying to say.
• Incidentally, that Hazlitt quote on Caliban and Ariel is splendid. I'd not even remotely considered that in this way before. Seeing that quote alone was worth the effort of reviewing this article. :-)

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FInally, kudos on an outstanding article. I'll be looking forward to seeing this at FAC in the not too distant future. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)