Talk:Robin Starveling

	Robin Starveling has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 6, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Robin Starveling, a character in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, may be a satire of one of Queen Elizabeth's suitors?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Shakespeare Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

This article is pretty short, but after scouring several books and scholarly articles, I'm confident that the article is comprehensive. Wrad 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the World Shakespeare Bibliography Online? Awadewit | talk 05:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Wrad 05:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like some doors have been opened. Can you hold the review a couple days and let me see how much there is and what's worth adding? Wrad 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You know that above all I am interested in helping people write quality articles. I wasn't sure if you had already consulted that source, but it seemed like it might help you out on these "obscure" Shakespeare characters. :) Awadewit | talk 05:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much, and a lot of it is used already. But I'll see what I can dig up. Wrad 06:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must feel good to find what you have used! That means your claim to comprehensiveness to probably accurate! Just drop me a line when you want me to review the article. Awadewit | talk 06:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to withdraw the nomination for now, until you are done with the research? Nothing wrong with that. Awadewit | talk 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm pretty much done with the research now, so go ahead and review it. Wrad 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things related to prose:

• his ridiculous role as Moonshine shining on the lovers adding to the play's contrast of symbolism and reality - a bit vague
• The date of play should be in the lead to help the uninformed reader.
• "Role in the play" could be expanded a bit by providing more context from the play.

• A sentence or two to put even this material in a broader context would be helpful - pretend you barely remember the plot of the play. Awadewit | talk 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Wrad 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image, at least of Shakespeare? (I like the quote box at the top, though.)

• You think including an image of Shakespeare would not be appropriate? Awadewit | talk 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll stick in a picture of a scene in the play instead. I just have to choose one. Wrad 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Wrad 19:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Robin's stupidly standing there, attempting to be moonshine, doesn't make him so. Similarly, no representation of anything in a play can really be completely real or truthful, no matter how hard its players may try. - This is a bit colloquial and doesn't quite express the sophistication of the idea. What is it that the scholars are saying Shakespeare is doing here? Is he saying that theater is a poor shadow of reality?

• The Mechanical's decision to use Robin as moonlight in place of actual moonlight delves into one of the themes of Midsummer Night's Dream: the contrast between reality and symbolic representations of reality, or the problem of making the part truly represent the whole (the rhetorical term for such symbolism is synecdoche). - New version of this is better, but I don't think the play is trying to solve the problem of "making the part truly represent the whole" - synechoche is just a rhetorical device. Awadewit | talk 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I understand what you're saying. It's not trying to solve the problem, it's presenting the problem, revealing the problem, exaggerating the problem. Shakespeare constantly begged his viewers to forgive the actors' feeble attempts in several plays, such as Henry V, to represent some great person or army with few resources. Here, rather than begging forgiveness, Shakespeare exaggerates the idea that synechdoche, all too often, just doesn't work. Wrad 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes perfect sense! Why can't you just say that? Sometimes you just have to connect the dots a little more for the reader. :) Awadewit | talk 20:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, It helps to bounce ideas off people, too. Sometimes things get all muddled up inside our own heads. Wrad 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A rhetorical term for this is synecdoche, or a part representing the whole - the "this" doesn't refer back to the appropriate idea; either restate the idea or reorder the sentences
• Robin attempts to employ syecdoche in his portrayal of the moon - This is an awkward formulation.
• Check spelling of "synecdoche" throughout.
• The "Analysis" section should be broken up into topical paragraphs.

Small things, as usual. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking back. Nothing seems to have been done yet. I hope everyone is ok over here. Awadewit | talk 10:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Once my work-week is over I'll come back. Wrad 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank goodness my horrific flu is not virtually contagious. :) Awadewit | talk 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went over it, I think I've got everything above covered, except for the image. Wrad 19:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me get this straight: the lantern is "part of the moon?" I don't think so. The lantern is used to represent the moon because it gives off light, as does the moon. It's a simple metaphore, not synecdoche.Floggolozzo (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and removed. Eroica (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starveling clearly plays the moon as the tarot trump Moon, lacking the eagle and scorpion of that symbol set only. Robin Dudley was Queen E.'s oldest suitor, a renowned dandy who was bankrupted by E's long visits. He was chubby too which would redouble the joke. On the other hand Devereaux was allegedly bisexual and "tailor" was a coding for that. Probably there is an element of conflation here. Klasovsky (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hungerleider. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Hungerleider until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]