Talk:Drama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Academic literature

If any of you have access to MIT press or informaworld you can easily source material to improve this article. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/action/showPreferences and http://www.informaworld.com Performatics (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Originating culture: Greece?

Greece presumably provides the earliest examples of "drama", but is there evidence that all other dramatic traditions emanate from it? If not, it can hardly be said that Greece is the "originating culture" of drama. Surely the introductory section is too Eurocentric. Western drama is defined as the norm (and someone actually has the audacity to single out two dramatic works as supreme examplars) and other dramatic traditions are in there "on suffrance". Either rewrite the article as an article on drama in general, or retitle it "Western drama" and put in a note and links to "analagous traditions in other cultures".

This page ([1]) notes that "There is no tradition of tragedy in India, and Kalidasa's plays always have happy endings. In Hinduism, everyone has an infinite number of chances to achieve enlightenment and liberation from the wheel of rebirth. A life that ends badly is only a prologue to another opportunity. Hence the basic premises on which tragedy is based are lacking." If this is the case, then the assumption that drama is divided into "comedy" and "tragedy" in the lead section seems to be a culturally based assumption.

Frankly, the whole lead stinks.

203.194.119.46 (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your reasoning is seriously flawed on several points there. The main point that you should try to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. That means that it provides no origianal research. It reports on what aleady established knowledge says. Hence the importance of citations from reliable, third-party sources. You will note that much of the article, especially the introduction, are fully-sourced in that regard. Yes, all of the evidence says that drama originates in classical Greece. That's what the sources say, and that's what the article reflects. India's dramatic traditions arise when that culture--Athenian tragedy and comedy--is extended by Alexander to India. You need to read the introduction a little more carefully. It states facts and gives the evidence for them. It doesn't say that all drama is divided into either comedy or tragedy - your argument concerning Kalidasa's plays is illogical. It describes specific historical traditions (such as that arising from the Poetics). It indicates quite clearly that there are other generic distinctions (the narrow use of "drama" itself, for example). And yes, Hamlet and Oedipus are generally regarded as pinacles of achievment in the dramatic literature of the world. Shakespeare remains the most-performed playwright on the planet. The whole lead is exemplary of the highest standards on Wikipedia. Your beef is with Theatre Studies as an academic field, not with this article, which merely reflects the conclusions of that field. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's well sourced but sorry, it's still a crappy lead. I read the introduction and it was just a string of sentences. Stringing together ten sentences, even if each is cited and each is individually true, doesn't automatically result in a coherent or truthful text. If the article wants to say that drama originated in Greece, was carried to India (although the section on Indian drama doesn't seem to imply that), and was then -- presumably -- carried to China and Japan, then it should say that. As it is, the article says that (1) drama originated in Greece (2) Noh "developed in the 14th and 15th centuries and has its own musical instruments and performance techniques, which were often handed down from father to son." There is a big implication here, that Noh drama ultimately originated from Greek drama, and a decent article would spell that out -- or desist from making such claims. (You will note that the info box says: "Originating culture:Classical Greece, Originating era; 5th century BC" whereas the body of the article says "Western drama originates in classical Greece." This kind of disharmony in the article is exactly the problem I'm talking about.)

As for Oedipus Rex and Hamlet, yes, Fergusson said that, but it is a value judgement nonetheless, and I would question that this kind of "information" is the most suitable for inclusion within the limited space of a lead.

203.194.119.46 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The introduction is of an exceptionally high quality for wikipedia and is comparable to entries in similar encyclopaedias and dictionaries of critical terms. What, precisely, isn't "truthful" in it? Where, exactly, does it lack coherence? I notice, too, that you ignore completely the central point I made in response to your first diatribe: namely, that Wikipedia reports on the current state of scholarship in a particular field. You want a source that says that drama orignates in classical Greece? Easily enough provided. Consult pretty much any textbook on drama. That endeavour will confirm, while you're at it, that the evaluation of Hamlet and Oedipus is widely-held. And reporting on that is the task of a Wikipedia article. It's not a platform for eccentric and ill-informed rants. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You want a source that says that drama orignates in classical Greece? Provide me with a source that Japanese Noh traces right back to classical Greece. If you can, I'll respectfully shut up. If you can't, then the statement that "drama" originated in classical Greece is obviously incorrect, and shouldn't be in the article (or else Noh shouldn't be in the article). The only reason you're sore is because a lot of the stuff in the introduction was written by you and you don't like other people criticising it. Incidentally, I checked Britannica (on line) and there wasn't an article. The first article in the list of links provided was "theatre (art)", and clicking through led to this: "Live performance of dramatic actions in order to tell a story or create a spectacle. ... The word derives from the Greek theatron (“place of seeing”). Theatre is one of the oldest and most important art forms in cultures worldwide. While the script is the basic element of theatrical performance, it also relies in varying degrees on acting, singing, and dancing, as well as on technical aspects of production (see stagecraft). Theatre is thought to have had its earliest origins in religious ritual; it often enacts myths or stories central to the belief structure ...". This certainly seems a lot less parochial than this Wikipedia article. 203.169.48.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I recommend a little less typing and a little more thinking. That may provide the opportunity for you to resolve your obvious confusions. The statements in the article are sourced. It is not my job, nor anyone else's, to provide you with citations that support imaginary statements. And as I made quite clear in my two previous postings, the reason I am "sore" is that despite the fact that the statements accurately reflect current scholarship in the field of Theatre Studies, you dismiss them without any further evidence than your ill-informed sense of how it should be. Quite what the reasoning behind your citation of the Theatre (art) article is eludes me. Where, exactly, do you think that you see a contradiction? Note the etymology of "theatre". Theatre may have developed out of religious ritual--it may also have developed out of story-telling. But theatre is no more religious ritual than opera is Athenian tragedy; it originates from the moment when theatre was invented. Drama was invented in classical Greece. I don't see how your quotation of the relationship between drama and theatre helps your "argument" in any way; on the contrary, it provides evidence against it--that theatre involves more than drama indicates that they have distinct genealogies. There is nothing "parochial" about this article. It reflects current scholarship. I suggest you begin to acquaint yourself with some. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have pointed out problems with the article and large parts of what you say do not address these problems at all. Statements like "The whole lead is exemplary of the highest standards on Wikipedia", "The introduction is of an exceptionally high quality for wikipedia and is comparable to entries in similar encyclopaedias and dictionaries of critical terms" are simply your opinion. Statements like "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about", "eccentric and ill-informed rants", "I recommend a little less typing and a little more thinking", etc. only demonstrate your self-perceived superiority to anyone who dares comment on what appears to be a pet article.

My point is quite simply that the lead of the article is written from the point of Western theatre (presumably the tradition that is represented in your "Theatre Studies" textbooks) and doesn't appear to take proper account of the sections on other dramatic traditions found in the article. The info box states that drama originated in Greece, which is a blanket statement covering the entire field and should be true for the entire contents of the article. And yet there are sections on Indian drama and Japanese drama that don't appear to fit in with this characterisation. This may be, as you say, a problem with the field of Western "Theatre Studies" -- I don't really care. What I am pointing out is that this is a problem with the way the article is currently written.

You note that "It doesn't say that all drama is divided into either comedy or tragedy". No, it doesn't. But the second paragraph starts out: "The two masks associated with drama represent the traditional generic division between comedy and tragedy." In fact, this is almost a piece of trivia that could be included below the masks themselves. But since it comes very near the start of the article, it suggests that both the masks and the tragedy-comedy distinction are fundamental to drama. This is a rather Western-centric view that could be easily remedied by changing the sentence to something like "The two masks associated with the Western dramatic tradition represent the generic division between comedy and tragedy" or "The two masks associated with drama represent the traditional generic division between comedy and tragedy in the Western tradition". (This may need some fine-tuning -- I'm sure the tragedy-comedy division is now pretty universally accepted because of the spread of Western traditions, but I do think it needs to be clarified exactly where this little section is coming from, and it's certainly not a universalistic viewpoint that would accommodate other traditions touched on in the article.)

My beef is thus with the article as it stands -- which seems to be a result of Westerners writing an article from the point of view of Western tradition and modern Theatre Studies, without properly dealing with the existence of other material in the article that doesn't seem to fit in with the lead. I quoted the Britannica article to demonstrate that other encyclopaedias (you brought them up first) don't approach either drama or the theatre from a purely Western viewpoint as this article does. To be frank, I'm a total outsider on theatre studies, but I do not believe that disqualifies me from commenting on how the article is written. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You have not complained about the way in which the article is written, but rather about its contents. In order for you to understand the comparison with other, similar articles that I made, you would have to take the time to read them, which you haven't. You've quoted, in a way that failed to support your argument in any discernable way, from an article on a different subject--namely, "Theatre." I am more than happy for others to contribute to the article, provided their contributions conform to the aims and standards that Wikipedia sets for itself. Your suggestions for changes to date do not conform to those standards. I point out too that what you perceive as my "rants" came at a late point in the exchanges. I took the time to explain to you where and how you were mistaken. Rather than go check that for yourself, you responded with "it's still a crappy lead". It's only possible to say that when one isn't familiar with the field of knowledge in question--that is, it is an ignorant response. Your suggestions that the field of theatre studies is eurocentric is absurd and, again, demonstrates your lack of familiarity. Take a look at Banham and Brockett and Hildy, for example. If you wish to comment on the content of an article, you need to familiarise yourself with the field of knowledge that it addresses. Your complaints about what you imagine to be the biases of the field arer glossed as one against how the article is written, but they are not--the section about which you are complaining is fully sourced from a wide range of reputable, third-party sources. Those are the criteria the Wikipedia sets. If you want to argue with the academic field, I suggest you compose an academic article and submit it to a reputable journal. Then, and only then, would we be able to include your opinions in the article, because they would have been peer-reviewed and considered by Wikipedia to be reliable. Wikipedia is not a blog. I've already indicated to you the genealogical origins of Indian drama in the Hellenistic period. You can go check that for yourself if you wish. Even on the basis of the information that this article already provides, you are able to see that Athenian drama developed two millenia before the Japanese examples. And with regard to your complaints about the information on the meaning of the masks: firstly, it predates my own edits; secondly, it is there because a previous editor felt that this might be information for which a casual browswer of the encyclopaedia may be looking, and I think that is a reasonable assumption; thirdy, it, like drama as a whole, originates in classical Athens, but is a symbol that signifies drama throughout the world, just as Shakespeare and Sophocles are performed all over the planet and belong to world literature. You are welcome to comment on the content of the article, but, for your comments to be incorporated into its form, you are under the obligation to inform yourself about those contents. Dismissals of the academic field in lieu familiarising yourself with it remain ignorant rants. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already indicated to you the genealogical origins of Indian drama in the Hellenistic period. You can go check that for yourself if you wish. Even on the basis of the information that this article already provides, you are able to see that Athenian drama developed two millenia before the Japanese examples. Do you need to be told that "genealogy" and "chronology" are two different things, or is this another of those minor matters that don't concern "experts" in the field? 203.169.48.225 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to add any information that you feel is relevant to the article, provided you give a reliable, third-party source for it. Feel free to demonstrate the veracity of your claims with evidence. That's how Wikipedia works. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In defence of a "Greek origin", you state: "India's dramatic traditions arise when that culture--Athenian tragedy and comedy--is extended by Alexander to India".

The section on Indian drama states: "Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC".

Yet your sole response to my pointing out this problem -- and this is the kind of issue I was raising -- is that I "don't know what I'm talking about", that my "reasoning is flawed", that "the introduction is of an exceptionally high quality for wikipedia", etc., etc. I don't need to be a critic of either "theatre" or "drama" to see that there is a problem here. But you apparently don't. I don't have much to add except to quote back to you your own dismissive comment: "I recommend a little less typing and a little more thinking". 203.169.48.225 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Now, try again. Remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia. The only way to be sure of accurate information is to check the sources cited. Notice that the claim in Indian drama section isn't sourced. See? Read it carefully, too. It's not saying that Indian drama originates then. It's saying that the drama took stories from the "dramatic episodes" in that epic; much like the Athenian tragedians dramatised episodes from Homer and others. As suggested above, both Banham (a British book) and Brockett and Hildy (an American one) give comprehensive coverage of the history of world drama. If you want to improve the article, rather than merely rant, they'd be one possible place to start. I'm sure that the article would benefit from your interest and care. There, you will find, for example, that "Sanskrit drama and theatre came into being and flourished during this relatively peaceful period between the 1st and 10th centuries AD" (Banham 1998, 516). "Most agree that the earliest fragments date from approximately 100 CE" (Brockett and Hildy 2003, 615). You see how easy that is. Now, you rephrase in your own words without changing any of the facts, and hey presto, the article is improved. That's how it works. Try it. DionysosProteus (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say "that the drama took stories from the "dramatic episodes" in that epic". It says "Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda". Also, read carefully. I didn't say I agreed with the statement in the Indian section. In fact, from what I understand, nothing survives from the Rig Veda period to indicate whether India had "drama" or not. My point is that there appears to be a mismatch between the lead and the contents. The lead appears to take Greek drama as the "norm", and that Eastern traditions that suddenly pop up in the body of the article are not properly taken account of. If I ever manage to get hold of Banham or Brockett and Hildy, I'll be sure to read them carefully and make some contributions to the article. But since you appear to be very knowledgeable about drama and its history, it would be nice if I could go to the Wikipedia article and find these things out, instead of going to the great trouble and expense of having books delivered thousands of kilometres from the UK or the US. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, a book published in 1949 seems to be rather dated as a source in support of the statement that Hamlet and Oedipus Rex are the two greatest dramas ever written. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I rephrased the quotation in order to make its meaning clear to you. You claimed that the sentence in the Indian drama section contradicts those in the lead. It doesn't. It identifies the source of the stories. There's no mismatch, merely misreading and misunderstanding. And it's no use whining about the expense of delivery. Poor you. You don't have access to a library? You're incapable of accessing google books? DionysosProteus (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It says that Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rig Veda". The phrasing isn't very clear but it certainly doesn't "identify the source of the stories". Incidentally, I am aware of the requirement for sources in Wikipedia which you don't tire of quoting to me. I might point out what is written at the top of this page, none of which you have observed:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming

I still maintain that the lead is "crappy" (which is not a personal attack on you but on the article, in case you hadn't noticed). From the very start you've manifested what I can only descibe as a "snooty" attitude. The more I put the case that I expect more from this article, the more you engage in personal attacks (eventually accusing me of "whining"). Are you sure that you're the right person to be defending this article? 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're still having trouble understanding that sentence, I see. Need I lay it out for you? The dramatic episodes are stories that appear in a hymn. Indian drama is traced back to those because that's where it takes its stories from. The sentence is identifying the sources of the stories that Indian drama uses, not telling us the origin of Indian drama. And it's no good getting all sanctimonious. You've admitted that your comments have been made from a position of ignorance but have been unwilling to go check sources to dispel that ignorance. This includes familiarising yourself with the history of Asian drama. Given that ignorance, you're in no position to assess whether or not the lead is "crappy." My attitude is entirely a function of your captious and ignorant postings. This is not a blog nor a forum for you to express your idiosyncratic take on the history of world drama, but a place in which to discuss making changes that will improve the article. You're not prepared to do the work that that requires and to make a positive contribution, as you've been invited to several times now. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for laying it out for me. Your explanation is much appreciated. It's a pity that's not what the sentence in the article either says or implies. So we're still in the same situation. The article is not fit for consumption by the average reader. Since you are so intent on defending the article and have so much knowledge that you can share with us when you feel like it, why don't you go and improve the article instead of blaming people who have difficulty with the poor writing? Sorry, I'm not one of your students who has to go to the library and research a paper for you. I'm an average reader who is having trouble with an article on a publicly available encyclopaedia because it's poorly written and structured. Calling me "captious" and "ignorant" and telling me to "go and find out for yourself and then fix it" is a nice cop-out from a person who describes himself as "a lecturer in drama in London" having "several degrees in theatre / drama / film from universities in the UK and USA". 203.169.48.225 (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's what the sentence in the section both says and means. It's there in black and white. And it is you that has a problem with the article. Since you do, improve it. No one else is under any obligation to satisfy your needs. The sourced material in the article is of a high standard. It is only your self-confessed ignorance that prevents you from grasping that. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the sentence says: "Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC". You are now telling me that "Indian drama" should be understood as "the stories that Indian drama uses". What remarkably precise use of language. No, I don't expect you to improve the article, because it appears to be beyond you.

I primarily regard Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia where it's possible to obtain good, balanced, comprehensive information. I still maintain that this article falls short on that count, which is why I pointed out my dissatisfaction with it. You, on the other hand, appear to believe that it's place to play silly games with words, insult people, and tell them to "go and look it up yourself, you ignoramus, and if you don't like what's here, come back and change it yourself". Since this article has failed me, I'll obviously have to go elsewhere for decent information. Chalk up another victory for Wikipedia.

Incidentally, since you are a "lecturer in drama" based in London, I assume (although following your sloppy use of the words "Indian drama" it's hard to be sure) that you are aware that "ignorant" has two nuances, one implying a general condition (an ignorant fool), one implying a lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing (ignorant of nuclear physics) (from Websters, if you want a source). You continue to describe me as "ignorant" in the second sense while implying the first. Very cutting. I don't particularly care whether you choose a Wikipedia talk page to vent your frustrations, but such childishness really doesn't inspire much confidence in your supposedly superior erudition. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are genuinely failing to grasp the point about that sentence in the section on Indian drama. Let's examine it phrase by phrase... it states: "Indian drama is traced back..." Yes? Not originates from, but may be traced to. In exactly the same way that Athenian tragedy may be traced to the epic poetry of Homer. Doesn't mean that Greek drama begins with Homer. It takes its stories from there. The sentence is identifying an influence; ..."to certain dramatic episodes" Not to certain dramas, but to events in the hymn that are "dramatic" - i.e., suitable for adaptation into drama. "described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC" - notice, it is the Rigveda that is this old, not the dramas that take it as their source. In exactly the same way, we could write that "Film Noir is traced back to the hardboiled narratives of Hammett and Chandler, which date back to the 1920s and 30s." Doesn't in any way say or imply that film noir started in the 20s-30s. It didn't. It may be traced back to then in that way. What I am telling you is not that "Indian drama" should be understood as "the stories that it uses" but quite the reverse: that the sentence doesn't say what you imagine it says and thus doesn't contradict the accurate, fully-sourced introduction. You seem to be having some trouble grasping this. I have no frustrations, other than with your ignorance. A word you seem to have trouble understanding. The two senses you attempt to distinguish are in fact the same sense - consult the OED, for example (sense #1). You said that the introduction is misleading and bad. It is neither. It is fully sourced and gives a good overview of the field. You have disagreed - fine. You have provided no evidence to support your disagreement. Not fine. Hence my invitation for you to go get some. In lieu of that evidence, your objections are groundless. DionysosProteus (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Film Noir is traced back to the hardboiled narratives of Hammett and Chandler, which date back to the 1920s and 30s". Fortunately, the actual article on Film Noir puts it rather better than you do: "Many of the prototypical stories and much of the attitude of classic noir derive from the hardboiled school of crime fiction that emerged in the United States during the Depression". See? It's not hard to be clear, accurate, and concise, is it?

The two senses you attempt to distinguish. Ah, yes, another snide and patronising comment. But since I indicated a source, your tone of pained disdain is quite unwarranted. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A source that you misrepresent - there is nothing snide or disdainful about pointing out factual errors. And the film noir statement that I constructed could be improved, certainly - as could the one on Indian drama in this article. The point, however, is that the sense of the existing statement was consistently misrepresented by you in your posts above. Its true sense should now be clear to you - it describes the sources of the stories that Indian drama dramatised, not the origin of Indian drama. And actually, yes, it is a challenge to be clear, accurate, and concise, as many of the less than well written articles in this encyclopaedia demonstrate. One becomes clear, accurate and precise by consulting appropriate sources. That is precisely what the introduction to which you have taken such exception does. I didn't write the section on Indian drama, and you, as any other browser, are welcome to improve it. I suggest that your energies are more appropriately applied in that direction than defending ignorant and captious objections on the talk pages. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The primary Websters definition of "ignorant" is "1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics>". The synonyms section below it says: "ignorant may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>". So what am I misrepresenting? You use the word "ignorant" repeatedly with evident relish, superficially in the sense of "not knowing about drama" but with clear intent to insult. You are perfectly free to insult anyone you want in your clases or on your blog (if you have one), but this is Wikipedia, and insulting people, either brazenly or surreptitiously, is a breach of etiquette.

You have finally admitted that the article could be improved, which is a step forward. No, I don't happen to live near an English-language library and yes, I do want to know a bit more about the historical development of drama. The article claims that drama originated in Greece (which does not just mean "chronologically prior" in the normal use of English), but no sources are cited for this statement. If it was Greek drama that "seeded" Indian drama, then it would be very useful to have that in the article. To any normal speaker of English, saying that Indian drama traces back to episodes in the Rig Veda does not necessarily mean that they took their dramatic material from there; it implies that Indian drama developed organically from the Rig Veda in some way. You obviously have both the sources and the knowledge to remedy this gap; I do not. Confronted with criticism of the article, you had two choices (1) "You ignorant person, you know nothing; go and find out for yourself and improve the article (with sources) if it bothers you that much." (2) "Yes, you do have a point, there are a few unclear places. I have good sources and knowledge of this field; I'll fix it up so that more people can profit from the article." You chose the first. It's disappointing to find such an attitude in a person supposedly involved in "educating" students and the general public about his chosen field. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If you feel insulted, that is a matter for you and a qualified psychiatrist. You identified your ignorance and I found that same ignorance to be at the root of many of your objections to the article. The allegedly "insulting" use of ignorant is a different sense to those that you cited--consult the OED. As someone who, from the very first post, has used phrases such as it "stinks", its "crappy", "the reason you're sore", you have no basis for complaining about anyone else's "attitude" or "etiquette". You've consistently misrepresented the actual contents of the article and captiously persisted even when the source of your confusion was pointed out to you. I have argued that the section of the article that you criticised--the introdution--is well-written and sourced. I didn't write the rest of it and not only have I no reason to defend its accuracy, at no point have I done so. I've pointed out to you that the sections on Indian drama and their corresponding articles are not sourced and so should be regarded with suspicion. I assume that any normal reader of English would be able to understand the first sentence of that section without the confusions to which you were subject. And, as I have already pointed out to you several times now, no one is under any obligation to improve the article to address concerns arising from ignorance. Hence my encouragements for you to do that yourself. Frankly, there are far more important areas requiring attention in the encyclopedia's coverage of theatre and drama, and it is to those that I give my time and effort. There is much in the encyclopedia that is unsourced or that requires expansion. Tracing the genealogical origins of Indian drama is low on the list of priorities. Since you feel that it is important, you could start with google books. Even with limited previews, it gives you enough access to reliable information to make the adjustments that you feel are necessary. That would certainly be a more productive use of your time and energy than attempting to reprimand me for failing to respect your ignorance. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel insulted. I see only continued pathetic attempts to insult. Perhaps you should see someone about the overweening and condescending attitude that shines through your writing. In fact, I do expect you to respect my "ignorance", because the function of an encyclopaedia is to enlighten the ignorant. But I don't think people should be expected to respect your arrogance, because there is no place for it in a collaborative enterprise such as this.

Strangely, I notice that you do not defend the lead or the article as a whole -- only the parts that you yourself have written. So from the very start it hasn't been about the article at all, it's been about defending Mr DionysosProteus's contributions. Perhaps the arrogance conceals a sensitive and defensive soul that feels itself under attack when its work is criticised. Unfortunately, when a person reads an article on Wikipedia, they don't (often can't) distinguish between the golden words of Mr DionysosProteus and the unsourced dross that other people have written. They read it as a whole. Your defence of the article would be more convincing if you wrote it from this point of view. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't feel insulted, then why write of my allegedly insulting posts? My attitude is a direct response to your own. And no, my function here is not to enlighten you. My only concern is with possible improvements to the articles. I've invited you to collaborate on the article several times, an invitation you've decided to repeatedly refuse. I find it baffling that you are able to read my posts above and conclude that "Strangely, I notice that you do not defend the lead or the article as a whole". How is that possible? I've repeatedly indicated, in unambiguious terms, that I was talking about the introduction/lead, which is the section that you criticised. You will note that this section is supported with many inline citations, just as the Classical Greek and Roman historical sections are. Much of the rest of the article is not supported in this way. The reason that those sections are supported is that I added the citations, having consulted the sources. Thus, I am in a position to confirm their veracity. It is on that basis that I am able to refute the criticisms that you made of it. Often your criticisms relied on an understanding of Indian drama gained from this article and those on the subject to which it links. I've pointed out that they are unsourced and that thus their information should be viewed with skepticism (as well as explaining in some detail the mistakes you've made reading them that have caused much of your confusion). It is on that basis that you, and anyone else, ought to assess the veracity and reliablility of the different parts of the article: whether their claims are supported with citations of reliable, third-party sources, as indicated in the references. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I find your attempts to insult laughably arrogant, but since a goodly portion of your diatribes consists in calling the other party "ignorant", I don't see why this tactic shouldn't be mentioned. It appears to be part of your stock in trade.

As for the opening sentence in Indian drama, I'm afraid that you have failed to present any convincing arguments that it means what you say it does. The confusion is yours, not mine.

It is gratifying to see that you've removed "originated in Greece" from the infobox. This was one of the problems I had with the article, and your removing it essentially vindicates my stance. (I don't care whether it was due to the "knowledgeable" comments of Johnbod or the "ignorant" comments of the anonymous user, the fact is that you've had to climb down, which is fine by me).

my function here is not to enlighten you. I didn't ask you to enlighten me. You have essentially said you don't respect ignorance, in the sense that you have supposedly been using it in all along -- lack of knowledge of the subject matter. If you don't believe that enlightening the "ignorant" (providing knowledge to people who previously lacked it) is one of the aims of Wikipedia, then I don't know what you're doing here. Or are you still engaging in your puerile game of using "ignorant" as a surreptitious insult? 203.169.48.225 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I refer to your comments as "ignorant" because that's what they are: not informed by the relevant knowledge. You stated that explicitly, having already made it clear by the tenor of your responses. If you took the time to address that ignorance, you wouldn't make the remarks that you have. Having been provided with a detailed explanation of the source of your confusion about Indian drama, quotations from reliable sources that confirm that explanation, and an example of a similiar construction to the specific sentence from this article that makes the sense clear, I can only assume that your failure to understand is wilful (or is it merely a difficultly following an argument?). I've read about Indian drama. I know that it wasn't invented four millenia ago. I've explained that to you. What's so hard to understand? And, as you will see from banner at the top of this page, the purpose of the talk pages is to improve the article, not to educate the ignorant, whether wilful or not. With regard to the infobox, it was not a part of the statements supported with the inline citations. That doesn't change the reality that the classical Greeks invented drama. DionysosProteus (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No, my failure to "understand" is not wilful. It's simply not what the article says. Tracing drama back to episodes in the Rig Veda and tracing film noir back to hard-boiled novels are both sloppy formulations. The sentence as it stands is vague but by no means can be interpreted as meaning that "Indian drama takes its source material from the Rig Veda". The article at Theatre of India (Redirected from Indian drama) states this even more bluntly: "Theatre of India began with Rigvedic dialogue hymns during the Vedic period." This is the message that is being put out on those pages dealing with Indian drama or theatre. Whoever is writing those pages obviously has a different take on the history of Indian drama from you. My interpretation is not incorrect. It is your attempts to skew the meaning in a direction favourable to your own interpretation that are incorrect. That Indian drama sentence is a problem. You can castigate me for not going in and changing it, but your attempts to defend its obvious problems are completely forced -- especially considering that you didn't even write it! Why are you going out on a limb over such a poorly phrased formulation? I can only conclude that you're deliberately being difficult because I dared call your lead "crappy". 203.169.48.225 (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have made clear in my postings above, I would agree that the formulation is sloppy. However, that statement is not only able to be interpreted in the manner I have suggested, that understanding is the only one that accords with the facts. I have provided you with evidence for that in the form of quotations from reliable sources. That you fail to understand this may be due to one of two reasons: wilful refusal to follow the argument, or stupidity. You have reassured me that it is not the former and I believe you. Are you labouring under the misapprehension that a "hymn" is a form of "drama"? Surely not? Though I can find no other explanation for the reasoning given above. Again, I point out to you that all of the statements to which you refer are unsourced. There is a reason for that. They are poorly formulated because whoever wrote them, whether willfully or in ignorance, is attempting to make it sound as though Indian drama is far older than it actually is. You'd have to ask them about that. I've defended the statement in this article only insofar as to point out that strictly speaking it is accurate, but only in the sense that I've explained in some detail above. Once again, if you need a more clear and unambiguous formulation, by all means edit it yourself. You could even avail yourself of the evidence I've provided above and cite that. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are a hoot, DionysosProteus. I've already pointed out, with evidence (a real sentence, not a made-up one), that what you yourself grudgingly admitted is in fact the case: "They are poorly formulated because whoever wrote them, whether willfully or in ignorance, is attempting to make it sound as though Indian drama is far older than it actually is." So you have tacitly admitted that my "failure" to "understand" your flimsy arguments is due neither to a "wilful refusal to follow the argument" nor to "stupidity", but to an actual understanding of both the surface meaning and underlying intent of the sentence. In your usual style, you prefer to hurl insults about stupidity than admit that you yourself were wrong.

Since you obviously don't care what the section on Indian drama either says or implies, then the lead has quite clearly been written without that section in mind. Which brings us back to my original point: 'Western drama is defined as the norm ... and other dramatic traditions are in there "on suffrance"'. Since my point has been borne out here (although it has been like drawing blood from a stone), in future I'll devote my energies to the next section: demonstrating why a string of cited sources does not a lead make. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to examine the arguments presented above in greater detail, since it's clear you've yet to understand them. As I've explained already, the statement in the article, strictly speaking is accurate. Only on the condition that it is understood in the sense that I have explained. That doesn't require any interpretation or drawing out of implications--it's there in the statement. It doesn't say indian drama begins there; it says it has its origins there. Aristotle, for example, says that athenian tragedy has its origins in the dithyrambs. Doesn't mean drama begins with the dithyrambs. There's nothing flimsy about my arguments--they are supported with citated sources. Your failure to understand rests soley on a response to what you imagine the sentence, this one and others in the article, implies. Not what it explicity states, but what you imagine it means. I've pointed out to you the error involved in your fantasies. Yet you persist in defending them. And you are correct: the lead was indeed composed without regard to the section on indian drama. It is under no obligation whatsoever to recapituate errors or poorly-phrased information from the rest of the article. The lead is there to give an overview of the subject, from a worldwide perspective. That's exactly what it does, on the basis of reliable sources, not on the basis of the contents of this or any other article on Wikipedia. Having failed to consult any of those sources, you are in no position to argue that they do not represent a worldwide perspective. On the contrary, I've already, on this talk page, quoted from them when talking about indian drama, thus demonstrating that those sources do indeed take account of that tradition at least. All of the objections that you have raised, so far, have been ill-founded. If and when you make a point that arises from something other than your fantasies and gut feelings, then I'll be happy to address it. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding your arguments, DionysosProteus. With regard to the sentence Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC. , you have explained as follows:

• Indian drama is traced back to those because that's where it takes its stories from. The sentence is identifying the sources of the stories that Indian drama uses, not telling us the origin of Indian drama. Let's examine it phrase by phrase... it states: "Indian drama is traced back..." Yes? Not originates from, but may be traced to. In exactly the same way that Athenian tragedy may be traced to the epic poetry of Homer. Doesn't mean that Greek drama begins with Homer. It takes its stories from there.

• the statement in the article, strictly speaking is accurate....it's there in the statement. It doesn't say indian drama begins there; it says it has its origins there. Aristotle, for example, says that athenian tragedy has its origins in the dithyrambs. Doesn't mean drama begins with the dithyrambs.

Perhaps you are talking about different statements here. Perhaps the second point refers to the statement Theatre of India began with Rigvedic dialogue hymns during the Vedic period. But in the light of your argument that the interpretation of statements should be based strictly on the facts as known (e.g. that understanding is the only one that accords with the facts), it is curious that you manage to end up saying that Indian drama both did and didn't have its origins in the Rig Veda. Would be useful if you could clarify before we go any further. 203.169.48.225 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Astonishing and really quite amusing that you need it clarified even further. How much simplier is it possible to make it? Okay, I'll try to make this easy for you and go very slowly, having already explained it several times now. Firstly, I write only about the statement in this article. It is clear from your posts above that you have misunderstood what the statement says, what it means, and what I have written about it. The statement reads: "Indian drama is traced back to certain dramatic episodes described in the Rigveda, which dates back to the 2nd millennium BC." Now, note the placement of commas: two phrases, yes? (1) Indian drama is traced to the Rigveda. Note the word "traced". It doesn't say "begins" nor should it, since that would be factually inaccurate (since the Rigveda isn't a drama, but a hymn). Are you still not getting that? Hence the comparison with the relation between Athenian tragedy and dithyrambs, as well as film noir with hardboiled fiction. Same relation in all three cases: one art-form provides material out of which a completely different art-form develops. Is that, at least, clear to you? Tragedy is drama, dithyrambs are hymns. Noirs are films, the hardboiled are books. Similarly Indian drama is drama, and the Rigveda is a hymn. Clear? It's the Rigveda, the hymn, that "dates back to the 2nd millennium BC", not the "Indian drama". Given that this is what the phrase actually says, it is, strictly speaking, accurate. In pulling out two of my postings from different stages in the discussion, you appear to be congratulating yourself on having identified a contradiction. Unfortunately, though, you've failed to notice that the word "origin" has two different senses, which an examination of the context of my postings in each case renders crystal clear to anyone able to follow a simple, logical argument: namely, "origin" as one of the sources for, and "origin" as the earliest instance of something. Clearly, the Rigveda is an "origin" for indian drama only in the first sense and not the second. Like the Greek dithyramb, it is in one sense the origin of the drama in question. The Rigveda is not, however, the earlest instance of Indian drama. In both cases, the dramas do not appear until later. In the case of Indian drama, the earliest evidence is many centuries later. The statement in the article is accurate; it's just that you're having trouble understanding what it actually says. Amusing, too, that you misconstrue another part of the argument as: "But in the light of your argument that the interpretation of statements should be based strictly on the facts as known (e.g. that understanding is the only one that accords with the facts)". You failed to follow that too, huh? DionysosProteus (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked for clarification and I got: Wow. Astonishing and really quite amusing that you need it clarified even further. How much simplier is it possible to make it? Okay, I'll try to make this easy for you and go very slowly, having already explained it several times now. Firstly, I write only about the statement in this article. It is clear from your posts above that you have misunderstood what the statement says, what it means, and what I have written about it. ...Are you still not getting that?..Is that, at least, clear to you?...In pulling out two of my postings from different stages in the discussion, you appear to be congratulating yourself on having identified a contradiction. ...The statement in the article is accurate; it's just that you're having trouble understanding what it actually says. Amusing, too, that you misconstrue another part of the argument as: "But in the light of your argument that the interpretation of statements should be based strictly on the facts as known (e.g. that understanding is the only one that accords with the facts)". You failed to follow that too, huh?

Although I simply asked you to clarify, you spent more than a third of your response engaging in talking down and ridicule.

I have at no stage suggested that Indian drama began with the Rig Veda. My understanding of the sentence is that Indian drama in some way developed out of the hymns of the Rig Veda, which are dialogue hymns (hymns that are in the form of dialogues), and have been described at Rigvedic dialogue hymns as arguably "an early precursor of Sanskrit drama". This seems to suggest a relationship like that postulated by Aristotle for the origins of tragedy and comedy: "Anyway, arising from an improvisatory beginning (both tragedy and comedy—tragedy from the leaders of the dithyramb, and comedy from the leaders of the phallic processions which even now continue as a custom in many of our cities), [tragedy] grew little by little, as [the poets] developed whatever [new part] of it had appeared; and, passing through many changes, tragedy came to a halt, since it had attained its own nature." That is precisely what "is traced back" suggests to me, and could suggest to anyone.

But you took the position that it can't mean this since you personally know that Indian drama only arose after Alexander the Great took Greek culture to India. Therefore, you maintain that the sentence is "not saying that Indian drama originates then. It's saying that the drama took stories from the 'dramatic episodes' in that epic". In fact, there is nothing in that sentence to suggests that Indian drama started with the Greeks, and that their dramatists merely turned to the Rig Veda for source material. This may indeed be the case, but that is certainly not what the sentence says.

203.169.48.225 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally! At last, enlightenment dawns. It actually sounds like you're beginning to understand. Well, that's a relief. And there's no need to repeat my posting in your own--we're all quite capable of reading the post immediately above another. If you now care to take a look at the large number of posts above, you'll notice that the relationship you now describe is exactly that which I've been trying to explain to you, for the most part without any success. Time and time again I've described that realationship, to have you respond with variations on "but that's not what it says/means". I'm glad to see that after several hundred words of explanations, clarification is eventually achieved. And you wonder at my tone? Go read the previous postings again, and perhaps that'll become clear (I won't hold my breath). At no stage in the discussion did I take "the position that it can't mean this since you personally know that Indian drama only arose after Alexander the Great took Greek culture to India". I was explaining to you--see the many postings above, complete with quotations from reliable sources as evidence for what I was writing--that Indian drama did not begin as long ago as you imagine. All of the evidence post-dates the spread of Hellenic culture to India. Certainly, there are dialogue forms prior to this, just as there are in many other cultures (the Egyptian "mystery plays" as some of the more misguided have termed them, for instance). None of that makes "drama". I agree that "nothing in that sentence to suggests that Indian drama started with the Greeks"--I have never claimed that the sentence said that. There's no "merely" about the relationship between the Indian dramas and the Rigveda. The non-dramatic poetic traditions of India provided its drama with its stories--again, take a look at a decent history of theatre book. Indian drama differs in its form from Athenian tragedy in some respects, but all of the earliest evidence post-date the period when in its theatres Hellenic culture was playing Greek drama in India. As I've already said... DionysosProteus (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Had you got down off your high horse for a bit, you might have noticed that I was not saying that Indian drama was old, or that it was older than Greek drama. My key point, which you might have understood had your judgement not been clouded by indignation and contempt, was that "genealogy" and "chronology" are two different things. That means, and I'll explain it to you, that Greek drama may be older than both Indian and Japanese, but these two dramatic traditions are not necessarily descended from Greek drama -- an independent origin is quite within the bounds of possibility. Indeed, that sentence on Indian drama seems to be implying that Indian drama arose from Indian antecedents, not from Greek ones. Your response to my pointing this out was: "It's not saying that Indian drama originates then. It's saying that the drama took stories from the 'dramatic episodes' in that epic", which led to the "several hundred words of explanations" that you complain of.

Since I am, as you love to stress, quite "ignorant" of the field, I am perfectly open to the possibility that Greek drama seeded not only Indian drama but also Japanese. In fact, Zeami's Kadensho starts out with the rather tantalising sentence: "In searching for the origins of sarugaku and ennen, some say they came from India, and some say they have been handed down since the age of the gods" [2]. But as you say, Wikipedia requires sources, not vague speculations... 203.169.48.225 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I do find "Western drama originates in classical Greece" rather bald. It would be better as "The surviving literary tradition of Western drama originates in classical Greece." No doubt every area had its own folk or religious dramas which went unrecorded but fed into the Western tradition. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is precisely the distinction between drama and ritual that is at issue, however. A ritual isn't a drama. Religious rituals may contain quasi-dramatic or quasi-theatrical elements, but that doesn't make them either. All our evidence for folk plays--which are forms of drama rather than rituals, despite their significant ceremonial dimensions--post-dates classical Greece. Drama as an art-form is a Greek invention. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It may post-date classical Greece - most of the world's written records do - but can it be plausibly claimed to have classical Greece as its origin? I very much doubt it. Given the various other traditions that have emerged around the world, it seems a large claim indeed. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't actually making a claim about "origin", strictly speaking. It is saying that classical Greece invented drama, which it did. Given the way in which both the Hellenic culture (spreading into Asia) and the Roman Empire (bringing drama as far as Britain) distributed the form far and wide, it's not such a large claim. That folk ceremonials become increasingly dramatic under the influence of strolling players the world over is a fairly straight-forward narrative that the wide geographical spread and long historical duration support; drama, originating from Athens, has been performed for thousands of years. Is it perhaps the rather ugly infobox that someone added recently from which these concerns originate? In which case, I'm happy enough to remove it. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is making that claim in fact. I still think my ""The surviving literary tradition of Western drama originates in classical Greece.", which is unarguable, is better. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean by virtue of the infobox? I removed it about the time you were making that post. All of the other statements have citations from reliable, third-party sources representing a broad overview of the subject. Your suggestion carries the ideological baggage of assessing drama as "literature". Ah, and with regard to the claim, I meant that the article isn't explicitly claiming that all world drama originates in Greece--though that is not an implausible claim by any means. But you are correct, it does claim that Western drama certainly does. I've added citations for that to resolve any uncertainly. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the quotes given support my more limited claim effectively; whether they actually support yours is in fact not at all clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that not clear? They make no mention of a tradition of literature. DionysosProteus (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The note says "^ Brown (1998, 441), Cartledge (1997, 3-5), Goldhill (1997, 54), and Ley (2007, 206). Taxidou notes that "most scholars now call 'Greek' tragedy 'Athenian' tragedy, which is historically correct" (2004, 104). Brown writes that ancient Greek drama "was essentially the creation of classical Athens: all the dramatists who were later regarded as classics were active at Athens in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE (the time of the Athenian democracy), and all the surviving plays date from this period" (1998, 441). "The dominant culture of Athens in the fifth century", Goldhill writes, "can be said to have invented theatre" (1997, 54). - my bolds. Your claims are larger than these more careful authors. 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is my selection of quotations that is careful I think you'll find. And to claim that Athens invented theatre is a broader claim, not a more narrow one--theatre is a broader term than drama. That specific citation wouldn't explicitly support "surviving literary tradition" by virtue of it. The note wasn't written to answer your queries, but as part of a draft on classical Athenian theatre; the details that you have indicated are there to support a description of the form as "Athenian" rather than merely "Greek". Hence my selections. If it's the distinction between the verb "invent" and "originate" then another source or two can be added to support it. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Theatre is a different term from drama; you can have other stuff than drama in theatres, and drama in other places than theatres. If you think you have references for your claim, let's see them. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that theatre is a broader term, as I pointed out, nonetheless, the citation, if you care to take a look at the source, supports the claim. And you are confusing the two senses of the term theatre (an artistic form and a building). There are other sources that I'll dig out and add when I have the opportunity. I came across a statement that used the exact terms in my reading a couple of weeks ago and noted it for future inclusion. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My problems with the lead

Definition: Drama is the specific mode of fiction represented in performance. (Presumably the definition, then, is "fiction represented in performance". It's a pretty broad definition, and somewhat narrower assumptions crop up further down.)

Etymology: The term comes from a Greek word meaning "action" (Classical Greek: δρᾶμα, drama), which is derived from "to do" (Classical Greek: δράω, drao). (Fine)

Nature: The enactment of drama in theatre, performed by actors on a stage before an audience, presupposes collaborative modes of production and a collective form of reception. The structure of dramatic texts, unlike other forms of literature, is directly influenced by this collaborative production and collective reception. (This is ok. But here we are taking drama in its broadest sense, including, I presume, lighting, scenery, performance, and all else? Or is this too simplistic? Are we only referring to the collaborative delivery of lines?)

Supreme examples: The early modern tragedy Hamlet (1601) by Shakespeare and the classical Athenian tragedy Oedipus the King (c. 429 BCE) by Sophocles are among the supreme masterpieces of the art of drama. (So Hamlet and Oedipus are the supreme masterpieces of "fiction represented in performance". More strictly speaking, they are texts for dramatic performance. Surely it is only when they are actually performed that they can be regarded as masterpieces. I wonder how appropriate it is to cite just two works as masterpieces of the genre, when there are other works in other traditions that may also be regarded as masterpieces, although in different terms from the Greek or English traditions. Putting this in the lead worries me a bit.)

Explanation of masks (comedy and tragedy): The two masks associated with drama represent the traditional generic division between comedy and tragedy. They are symbols of the ancient Greek Muses, Thalia and Melpomene. Thalia was the Muse of comedy (the laughing face), while Melpomene was the Muse of tragedy (the weeping face). (This introduces two things: the masks, and the distinction between tragedy and comedy. This distinction is important in the lead, because it is referred to again below. The two masks are features of Western drama specifically).

Mode: Considered as a genre of poetry in general, the dramatic mode has been contrasted with the epic and the lyrical modes ever since Aristotle's Poetics (c. 335 BCE)—the earliest work of dramatic theory. (Now we have a distinction drawn between dramatic, epic and lyrical modes. How these Aristotelian modes fit in with the definition of "fiction represented in performance" is not totally clear. If drama is "performance", the how are "epic" and "lyric" defined? In other words, this is just bare bones -- there needs to be more meat on the bones in order to make it comprehensible).

Modern senses: The use of "drama" in the narrow sense to designate a specific type of play dates from the 19th century. Drama in this sense refers to a play that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy—for example, Zola's Thérèse Raquin (1873) or Chekhov's Ivanov (1887). It is this narrow sense that the film and television industry and film studies adopted to describe "drama" as a genre within their respective media. "Radio drama" has been used in both senses—originally transmitted in a live performance, it has also been used to describe the more high-brow and serious end of the dramatic output of radio. (You will notice that reference is made to "tragedy" and "comedy" again. Strangely, a specific type of play that is neither comedy or tragedy is referred to as being drama a "narrow sense". For me, this sounds like a broader sense, not a narrow sense. I find it hard to understand what is being got at, when we haven't defined "tragedy" and "comedy" as primitive terms in the lead.)

Other elements: Drama is often combined with music and dance: the drama in opera is sung throughout; musicals include spoken dialogue and songs; and some forms of drama have regular musical accompaniment (melodrama and Japanese Nō, for example). In certain periods of history (the ancient Roman and modern Romantic) dramas have been written to be read rather than performed. In improvisation, the drama does not pre-exist the moment of performance; performers devise a dramatic script spontaneously before an audience. (If "performance" is the key word, then music and dance should be equally valid ways of presenting narratives. Or to put it another way, is it really possible to divorce the other elements of the performance from the purely literary aspect?)

These are some of the problems I have with the lead. I find it hard to understand because it seems to shift focus and hints at basic distinctions like 'tragedy' and 'comedy', but doesn't really define them. And as I said, it is very Western-centric.

203.169.48.225 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC

All of the statements in the lead are sourced with citations. You will notice that those sources are all reliable overviews of the subject in general. It is from those that the definitions are taken. They are not making "assumptions" but describing what drama is. As a form that has existed for 2,500 years, this involves a range of historical variations. The description that includes performance doesn't entail the inclusion of "lighting, scenery" etc. That is theatre. As previously stated, it is a "mode of fiction". It is describing the special quality of dramatic texts as distinct from other modes of fiction. I don't quite follow your argument about Hamlet and Oedipus... is it possible that you're confusing the sense of "represented"? It doesn't mean "represented" in the sense that an example represents a general category, but rather in the sense of representation (arts) - i.e., mimesis. They are texts whose special quality is that they are designed for performance--and a special kind of performance at that, namely mimesis rather than diegesis (the distinction arising from the contrast between actors and rhapsodes, both of whom "perform" but only one of whom performs "drama"). Hence they remain masterpieces performed or not, without that detracting from the special nature of their fictional mode. This also explains how the anomoly of "closet drama", as some call it, still qualifies. Any survey of world drama will include those examples. You are welcome to add other candidates if they are in the same league and are provided with a citation. The next nearest competitors for anything like their degree of world fame would be the Scandinavian/Russian realists/naturalists, or Brecht/Beckett. The masks originated in Greece 2,500 years ago, but are now symbols of drama the world over. The relationship between the opening definition and the Aristotlean modes should be clear now that I have explained the apparent confusion about the relationship between text and performance. With regard to the 'drama in the narrower sense' section, I am confused as to why you think that we haven't been introduced to comedy/tradegy at this point, since it happened in the previous section--the generic distinction. It is a narrower sense because "drama" refers there to a particular type of "drama" (namely one that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy). Some dramas are "dramas", some are "tragedies", some are "comedies". This is an historical development, which the section explains. With regard to your last section, most of your questions should have been addressed by means of the clarification about text/performance above; of those that remain, I would ask: in what way is music able to represent fiction? Dance is able to represent fiction, but does not always do so in its essence (its representational abilities are not always and inherently utilised). Aristotle, in the Poetics, describes this. Remember that at the origin of drama, dance is a part of it--Athenian tragedy is a form of dance-drama, in which its lyrical stasima are sung and danced. It was in imitation of this that opera, as a hybrid genre of music and drama, was created. Hence the definition at the start: the specific mode. You haven't indicated the ways in which you consider the lead "West-centric"; you have pointed out the origin of the masks and the fact that Hamlet and Oedipus are both European texts. This doesn't make it "West-centric". In all of those cases, the claims made by the article hold for the entire planet--namely that H&O are examples of the highest, most-recognised achievements in world drama. If you have alternatives, by all means name them. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The stage

To have a good acton stage you need to have the elements of drama: 1) The story 2) The etting 3) The Otherness (charactres) 4) The audiace

The stage id divided to 9 parts which are USR: Upper stage right CSR: Center Stage Right DSR: Down Stage Right UCS: Upper Center Stage CS: Center Stage DCS: Down Center Stage USL: Upper Stage Left CSL: Center Stage Left DSL: Down Stage Left

oh dear lord....58.164.116.104 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

--95.140.174.93 (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)