Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Relapse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Relapse

Selfnom, a comedy from 1696 with a tour of the horrors of 17th-century pre-production. This play had the most traumatic rehearsal time of the entire Restoration period, and still the première was a success. Was that because, or in spite, of one of the actors being drunk? You be the judge. With special thanks to Ganymead and his uncanny knack for knowing the best links for more recent stage history. Too much actorcruft? Or you'd like more, and portraits of the première actors also? So would I, but none exist; footnote 3 4 explains why. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• First Post err I mean Support :)  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, well-researched, well-done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. *putting on bad southern accent in imitation of a Shake'n Bake commercial* "It's The Relapse and I helped!" A truly marvelous article! *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support—doesn't strike me as outstandingly thorough, but I think it's quality work. Everyking 08:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support: An excellent (and thorough -- just go do some print research on this play and see what you come up with) account of one of the less-studied early 18th century plays. In particular, it has an interesting thesis that's well supported, well researched, and well argued. Geogre 12:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Minor object - all well and good, but where is the link to the orginal text? If it is from 1696 it should be in public domain, right? Project Gutenberg, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the only digital version of The Relapse I know of is this one, in the subscription-only LION database. I'd rather not link to that. I've been looking for a free version ever since I created the external links section in John Vanbrugh; but if one exists, it's beyond my searching skills. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've just done a search and I haven't been able to find a digital version. If there is one that is free it's buried very deeply. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 04:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Bishonen, if it's public domain, couldn't you just copy it from that database and put it on wikisource? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is a delightful work. On a superficial note, I appreciated the article's analytical tone and perilously eloquent diction — while continuing to remain impersonal (i.e., it could comfortably take its place among the best book reviews published in the The New Yorker). However, there are some minor issues which, coming from one not well-versed in literary/theater criticism, should not be taken too seriously:
  • There are instances of weasel words (e.g., "The play is thought to have been brilliantly ..."; please consult Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms) — I fixed this example and one other; arguments and theses should always be concretly attributed.
    • Thank you, that's great.
  • In addition, given the sexual licentiousness of the piece's plot and the hostile reception among Puritans, I am surprised that there is no modern critique of such works as this among, say conservative evangelicals and other religious fundamentalists.
    • It's simply not well known enough, I think. Also it's a play; in the 17th century, religious fundamentalists hated the stage too much to be all that bothered about individual plays (which is one reason Collier's detailed critique was innovative and got a sympathetic hearing outside the circle of his fellow Puritans). I don't know whether that may still be the case with those of similar convictions today. And also it's so old.
  • I am also surprised that there is no incisive exposition or analysis of the allegorical implications of the names given the character (or perhaps its much too obvious to treat — Fop --> Foppington; in fact is there any deeper meaning than this?), nor is there any section or subsection that is devoted to a more profound thematic analysis (such analysis appears to me to have been quite liberally mixed into the "Stage history" section).
    • Yeah, the names are pretty obvious—"Sir Tunbelly Clumsey" = country squire :-) —the only intrinsically interesting name is Loveless, IMO (think the devilish "Lovelace" in Richardson's Clarissa, a name that some believe was borrowed from here, as it's phonetically exactly the same). But my analysis focuses on Vanbrugh's intentions, esp. in relation to the cast, and "Loveless" was invented by Colley Cibber, which made it the less interesting, I thought. I did think of having a section on critical analysis—please compare The Country Wife, which is mainly my work also, if you're interested (you may not think The Relapse so licentious and scandalous any more, if you do!). In that article I traced historical fluctuations of interpretation, and had material enough for it to be interesting, I think; but The Relapse hasn't generated that kind of academic interest. I do think you're right, though, there should be something. I'll fix it.
  • Additionally, what is meant by "socially diverse" in the introduction? Does this mean a balanced gender ratio among the play's patrons, or socioeconomic class/caste diversity, or political/religious diversity, et cetera. Please elaborate in concrete terms, if at all possible.
    • Heh. :-) I'm very flattered that you looked at Restoration comedy also, because I think that must have been where you saw that phrase. It means socioeconomically diverse. Not that the audience was socioeconomically balanced, not even as much as Shakespeare's audience; I was more trying to imply briefly "don't run away with the idea that they were all courtiers". Restoration comedy is a very boiled-down and concentrated article, there was so much that wanted in—maybe too concise for comprehension sometimes, unfortunately.
  • Next — when it is stated that "its tolerant attitude towards actual and attempted adultery gradually became unacceptable to public opinion", is this a matter of grassroots trend toward intolerance, or is it an elite-enforced set of mores (a la the Taliban) that drove such works underground?
    • It's the good old rise of the bourgeoisie. :-) Restoration comedy expresses an ethos of aristocratic licentiousness, which is driven back, rather than underground, in the 18th century. This ethos was well on its way to being marginalized by the mid 1690s, actually, after the Glorious Revolution: a development illustrated by the absence of moralizing in The Country Wife (1676), versus the ampleness of it in Cibber's Love's Last Shift (1696). I haven't changed the Lead, that you quote from, but I've added a section on this theme, "Sexual ideology", further down, plus a sentence in the "Stage history" section, please see if you think these address your concerns.
  • Instances of rather awkward and/or inappropriate phraseology: "particular outrage" ...
  • Another concern: in the FA on The Brothers Karamazov, there exists a special section devoted to tracking the influence that that work had on later authors and works. I know that Bishonen and others have done a listing of modern renditions, but is there reason to suspect that other playwrights/screenwriters/authors have taken their que from this work?
    • No... not really. I love Vanbrugh, but Dostoyevsky he is not. The Relapse tends to be reckoned as a second-tier Restoration comedy (IMO undeservedly), and is very much not widely read, even though it's a pretty popular stage piece. (Compare the query above yours: there's no free e-text.) 20th-21st century Restoration comedy influence comes mostly from Aphra Behn, William Wycherley, William Congreve, while in the 19th century, these were all held as abominations.
  • Other than these rather minor quibbles, Bishonen is to be lauded for his or her aesthetic and analytic achievment here. Kudos. Saravask 07:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • [Blush.] Thank you very much for taking the time to comment so fully and helpfully, and for the lovely compliments. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)