Michael Hopcroft wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Anthony wrote:
There are a number of reasons to do this. One is
that it helps lessen
the amount of "fancruft".
First it behooves to demonstrate what's actually wrong with
"fancruft"
before trying to come up with arbitrary limitations intended to reduce it.
For quite a while now I've been using Wikipedia first before IMDB when I want to know
whether a movie or TV show is worth watching, a synopsis is rather important in that
regard.
As anyone who's been in a college literature course can tell you, there
are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well
beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why is
this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do they
discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of
the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do those
who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those
reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed
signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The same
can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was
Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital
questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially
scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
I don't dispute that, but in a site such as this the information is
layered. It will begin with rudimentary information about the person's
vital statistics, his field of importance. In the case of a writer, his
most important works will be listed. Ideally, as others become involved
the article will grow to include the kind of documented analysis that
you describe. Lesser luminaries are less likely to receive that kind of
treatment, but their more limited biographies still have a place in
Wikipedia.
There are many things that would be readily accepted in
an article about
Macbeth that would dismissed as "fancruft" in an article about The
Sopranos -- but there is no fundamental difference between the purpose
of those two articles. None at all. "Why does The Sopranos matter?" is
just as important a question as "Why does Macbeth matter?", just as "Why
is The Sopranos the way it is?" is just as important a question as "Why
did Shakespeare write macbeth the way he did?". Just because a work is
newer, is less mainstream, or is more poorly regarded in the mainstream
does not make it any less worthy of this sort of examination. Sometimes
quite the contrary, at times: if one is writing an article on Plan Nine
from Outer Space, the low-budget science-fiction film of legendary
shoddy awfulness, it is important to provide some reason WHY it is worth
talking about -- as an example of delusional hubris on the part of the
idiot auteur Ed Wood, or perhaps as an example of the perseverance and
improvisation that enabled Wood to complete the film in the face of
innumerable obstacles like the death of his only remotely qualified actor.
If an author's significance endures more becomes available with time.
One could dispute the importance of the porter in "Macbeth", but De
Quincey's essay does much to focus on his significance. Unamuno's "Our
Lord Don Quixote" is reverence at its best. When dealing with the arts
and literature of our time it would be presumptuous of us to prejudge
the importance of any specific work or artist. It takes time.
Ec