Talk:Equus (play)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think a seperate entry is not a bad idea, but leave the same information under the original Equus entry because it is a part of the literaty movement.
- I agree.
- yeah bro
- yes I agree, then the actual literary meaning can be explored
- Will that satisfy the VSI (Very Self Important) critics and purists?
- its actually Dan Radcliff that has to go nude, not that other guy
- I agree that a new entry for the 2006 London revival should be written
Contents |
[edit] Advertisement??
This play is considered a literary masterpiece and has been acclaimed all over the world as such. The idea that at this late date it needs any "advertisement" and the thought that using encomiastic language about it constitutes some sort of commercial for it merely shows the vulgarity of some of the people who write in this site—as in the original article, where much was made of the play's "plot", as if it were popular fiction.
People who do not know the ways of literary criticism should abstain.
[edit] Subject & Significance
There seems to be a big chunk of plot summary missing - the section reads like it's composed of beginning and end paragraphs, with the middle deleted. I haven't seen or read the play, so can somebody who has take a look at it? ShaleZero 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Daniel Radcliffe
Who does he think he's kidding trying to play in Equus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.62.137 (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
That is exactly why he is doing it.
[edit] Prognostication
- The casting of Radcliffe, still associated with films intended for general audiences, ...
I like the way this implies that Daniel Radcliffe's career is over. --61.214.155.14 00:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Aww shucks, someone fixed it. --61.214.155.14 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
