Talk:Soliloquy

Suggested merger

see Talk:Monologue--Smerus 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The "Romeo, O Romeo" example of a silolquy should not be included because it counters the definition available.

-"A soliloquy is a literary device often used in drama whereby a character relates his or her thoughts and feelings without addressing any of the other characters.[1] "

Even though Juliet is talking to herself on the balcony, she is addressing Romeo and herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdroos (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is an example of monologue, not soliloquy, and there are plenty of perfectly good and well known examples that can be used instead. I would edit, but only just made account and don't exactly know what I'm doing :p Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes in definition

The definition listed is wrong in several particulars. The term "soliloquy" comes from the Late Latin soliloquium, meaning “an act of talking to oneself” (Oxford English Dictionary). It is not necessary for the character giving a soliloquy to be physically alone on the stage, only that he/she/it utters personal thoughts aloud for the audience, without other characters being aware of what is being said.

The distinction between poetic and prose drama has nothing to do with the current, less frequent use of the soliloquy. It was the shift toward realist drama and realism in the late 18th and 19th century that “put it [the soliloquy] out of fashion” (Oxford Companion 949).

Hamlet’s lines that begin “To be, or not to be” (3.1.ff) are, in fact, the beginning of a soliloquy. Stage direction indicates that he has just entered the room. There is no indication that he is addressing (or means to address) Ophelia; Ophelia’s lines after the soliloquy: “Good my lord / How does your honour for this many a day?” (3.1.93-4) clearly show that she has not heard what Hamlet was saying during the speech. Every major edition of Hamlet and/or its primary editor, from the Norton Shakespeare, to the Riverside, to (the) Bevington, notes at some point that this speech is a soliloquy.

I should note that I am a University Shakespeare Professor, and the idea that Hamlet's speech is not a soliloquy is not an idea that is seriously considered among Shakespeare scholars.

Sources: “Soliloquy.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989. Print. McArthur, Tom. Ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.43.102 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have changed "when a character speaks to oneself", since it makes no grammatical sense whatsoever. Therefore I have changed "oneself" to the correct "himself" - the reflexive form of the third person singular, neuter, personal pronoun. Yes I know what you are thinking, but "himself" is also neuter when applied to human beings of either sex. One should note that I am only an ordinary English speaker with an adequate grasp of the English language. That rumbling noise is Shakespeare turning in his grave ;)--62.249.233.80 (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you clear something up, as an expert? The definition says that soliloquy is self-addressed monologue, which does not require the character to be alone on stage, but it doesn’t follow (if they aren’t alone) that the ‘aside’ convention applies and they can’t be overheard. What’s the basis of that further assumption?

‘To be’ is a curious example. Yes Hamlet has many soliloquies but for all others he is actually alone and we don’t have to mentally apply the ‘aside’ convention. That we do so for ‘To be’ is weird: yes he’s talking as if he thinks he’s alone but (a) he’s not and (b) he might be pretending. We could clear it up if we knew what he’s saying but that’s a topic of longstanding debate. Pertin1x (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Another mistakes in definition

Is this grammatically correct?

a character speaks to themselves,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.165.223.99 (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

For the theological work, see Soliloquies of Augustine

Are you sure the For the theological work, see Soliloquies of Augustine is necessary? You already have a link in the See Also section, and it would be unlikely that people would confuse Soliloquies of Augustine for Soliloquy - BlueRoll18 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Soliloquy is a singular noun in English

@Sandstein: why did you change "A soliloquy is a collection of thoughts..." to "A soliloquy are thoughts..."? A solilquy is a singular noun, the plural is "soliloquies".

Your edit states "not per the source". What source are you referring to?

- "Soliloquy in Japanese and English" uses "a soliloquy" as a singular noun (in chapter 5) - as is correct and expected.

- "The Cambridge companion to English Renaissance drama" uses "a soliloquy" as a singular noun (page 23) - as is correct and expected.

One cannot say "A soliloquy are ..." in English.

One can say "A soliloquy is a collection of thoughts that are..." - but here the thoughts are the plural, the soliloquy is still singular.

One can also say in a more general statement "Soliloquies are collections of thoughts..."

...but one can't start the sentence with "A soliloquy..." and then switch to the plural and continue with "...are..."

If English is not your first language then one would understand the error but please explain and clarify your edit so we can fix this.

Thank you. 99.4.120.135 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've rearranged the lead sentence. "A collection of thoughts" is inelegant; one does not collect thoughts. Sandstein 10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That's better... but others who have published on "a collection of thoughts" clearly show that it is a well known idiom. Wikipedia is not really the place for you to practice learning English. Google: a collection of thoughts 99.4.120.135 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Illustration

A soliloquy in lincoln park

I inserted a drama related illustration and it was reverted. I also attempted to give a broader context of Soliloquy beyond the narrow focus of drama and that too was reverted as Not dict. The reverter has not returned to discuss so I will propose the illustration here. The caption could be changed, or another illustration more appropriate proposed... or no illustration.

• Support illustration as proposer. Lightburst (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a picture for the sake of a picture. What the statue says is difficult to read unless one clicks on the image. A better picture would be of an actor performing an actual soliloquy. Sandstein 14:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Thank you for the feedback. I see your point here. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Lemma (morphology)

@Lightburst: What exactly is the connection between the topic of this article and Lemma (morphology), which you have linked to in the "See also" section? Sandstein 14:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I have erased the See also. I see this term as narrowly defined - as it is now it is exactly a drama definition. It is duplicative to create another article with other uses. I see the same content dispute on the other article Wagon Fort. As it is Circle the wagons redirects there, but is not defined as the idiom that it is. The historical uses, it is again duplicative to create another article on the topic. There seems to be room in this article to add further uses. So etymology and historic uses of the two seem appropriate. I recently pointed you to Feeding Frenzy to see an example. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 18:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Hamlet's iconic “To be, or not to be” speech might not be a true soliloquy, but a calculated act meant to deceive?

• Source: https://www.noveltyjournals.com/upload/paper/Soliloquies%20in%20Hamlet%20Necessary%20or%20Unnecessary%20In%20the%20Context%20of%20the%20Play-211.pdf

• • ALT1: ... that a character does not always have to be alone for a soliloquy to happen? Source: https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/wlf/what-soliloquy-definition-and-examples
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by MallardTV (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 11:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC).

• DYK compliance check:

Topic is encyclopedic

Article created November 20, 2003. Qualification for DYK is per 5x expansion.

Article is minimum length for DYK (2953 words)

Article is well-sourced, neutral, BLP-compliant, and copyvio-free.

Article is presentable

All hooks are cited to a reliable source

All hooks are short enough.

All hooks are interesting. I am veering towards the first because the wording gives it a mysterious quality.

Not applicable: hook does not have image

Not applicable: QPQ not required

RESULT: ViperSnake151  Talk  02:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Reopened per WT:DYK. Big sourcing deficiencies here.--Launchballer 22:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that this is now at WP:GAR, so will need to go on hold anyway.--Launchballer 14:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Marking this for closure as MallardTV indicated he would not be able to address the GAR concerns, meaning the article is almost certainly going to be delisted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Soliloquy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MallardTV (talk · contribs) 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments from Noleander

• Clarify . Soliloquies are distinguished from monologues by their introspective nature and by the absence or disregard of other characters within the scene. readers may think the word "scene" means the entire scene of the play/performance; more precise might be . Soliloquies are distinguished from monologues by their introspective nature and by the absence or disregard of other characters on the stage.

• Ambiguity Soliloquies are distinguished from monologues by their introspective nature and by the absence or disregard of other characters within the scene. They are used as ... The word "They" at start of 2nd sentence could refer to monologues or even characters. Consider removing ambiguity by changing "They" to Soliloquies; or change "soliloquies" to "They"; or by flipping the two sentences.

• Plainer wording: ...a soliloquy creates a space where the character’s private world is made publicly visible ... word "space" here seems to be term of art; a bit too poetic? For a general purpose encyclopedia, consider using wording more understandable to the layperson. E.g. ...a soliloquy is a device where the ... or ...a soliloquy creates an environment where the ... or ...a soliloquy creates an situation where the ...

• Plainer word: ... is made publicly visible without the need for other interlocutors. Many readers, especially those for whom English is not their native tongue, will not know what "interlocutor" is. Consider "characters" or "actors" or similar.

• Clarify From the mid-seventeenth century onward, neoclassical criticism... Readers are not informed what phrase "neoclassical criticism" means. Is this an academic discipline? If so: what sort? Philosophy? Drama? Politics? Or is it simply critics in the contemporary media? Should either add words to explain (or give context to) "neoclassical criticism", or replace with alternative wording.

• Clarify: ... the influence of the Renaissance soliloquy endured in modified forms. ... Not clear what, exactly, "Renaissance soliloquy" means. Is it a proper noun? Was it defined earlier in the article? Clarify by changing to something readers can grasp, eg. to ""Renaissance-style soliloquy" or simply "soliloquy".

• Clarify: During the Romantic and Victorian periods, soliloquy-like monologues reemerged as a means of expressing individual consciousness and emotional intensity... As written now, sort of forces the reader to remember the definition of monologue from elsewhere in article .... some readers won't remember. Does "soliloquy-like monologue" mean there were other character(s) on the stage, and the speaker is directing their words to the other character(s)? Or does it mean the speaker was acknowledging the presence of the other characters? Suggest help reader by adding a few words.

• Explain: ... critical reception of the soliloquy became more favorable once again, though often within a redefined framework. What does "redefined framework" mean here? Is it defined in the following sentence? if so, clarify. If not, clarify anyway :-) Also consider giving examples of these new frameworks.

• Proper noun? define. ... the increased attention to individual expression characteristic of Renaissance drama. Reader will not know exactly what is meant by "Renaissance drama". Can you define it here? Or reword to minimize confusing. E..g "Renaissance-era drama" or similar.

• Connect sentences: Shakespeare’s works exemplify the period’s mastery of the form. In Richard II, the king’s soliloquies articulate the psychological ... Four authors are named in the preceding two sentences (before "In Richard II..") so can you help the reader know which of those four wrote Richard II? Consider change to In his Richard II.. or simply connecting those two sentences with a colon e.g. change "form." to "form:"

• Source needs more details: "Dramatic Monologue". obo. Retrieved 29 April 2025.
  • What is "obo" ? Short for Oxford Bibliography? Spell out.
  • Author is not named. Appears to be Cornelia Pearsall
  • Consider adding publication date: LAST MODIFIED: 25 June 2013
  • Consider adding DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199799558-0094

• Source missing author: "To be, or not to be Meaning, Hamlet, Shakespeare, Soliloquy, Monologue, & Facts Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 29 April 2025.{"To be, or not to be Meaning, Hamlet, Shakespeare, Soliloquy, Monologue, & FactsBritannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 29 April 2025.
  • author is Meg Matthias

• Suggest reviewing all sources and seeing if author or publication date can be provided.

• Categories: probably could benefit from some more categories, e.g.
  • Category:Fiction-writing mode
  • Category:Monologues (which also includes soliloquies)
  • Category:Narrative techniques

• Consider adding one or two topic bars at the bottom of the article, if appropriate. E.g.
  • {{Theatre}} i.e. Template:Theatre

• Image free-use? Image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Cherry_Orchard_MAT.jpg metadata page claims to satisfy WP free-use policy, because it allegedly was published (photo printed & distributed) before 1930, but I don't see any proof of publication date in that metadata page. Probably not a big deal for GA approval, but if you take this article to FA, they will require proof that the photo was published (not just taken) before 1930.

• Image caption: Faust (Jaewoo Kim) realizes the... If possible, add link to Jaewoo Kim; if not in English WP, maybe he has a Korean WP article to link to?

• Accessibility / Visually impaired: only a few of the images have "alt" text, which describes the visual image (which is a distinct purpose, different from the caption). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. Ideally, all images would have "alt" text.

• At bottom of article, consider adding links to Wiki Commons & other projects. Viz

{{Sister project links |wikt=no |commons=yes |commonscat=yes |n=no |q=yes |s=yes |b=no |v=no}}

• @MallardTV: That's all I have for now. Ping me when you've addressed/resolved the above, and I'll make another pass. Noleander (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Noleander I'm going over it now! MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 12:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Noleander Alright, I think I addressed all of the concerns. I cannot find any article for Kim on any wiki. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 13:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  @MallardTV Regarding topic bar at bottom: it is customary to default the display to collapsed so it does not take too much real estate until user clicks "Show" button : {{Theatre}} -> {{Theatre | state=collapsed}} Noleander (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Noleander Ah, I see, thank you! MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 14:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  And uh... How do I do that? MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 14:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Oh I see that you told me how. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 14:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You made the correct change, but it is not collapsing in my browser .. not sure why. I posted a question in WP Help Desk about how to initially collapse; maybe I don't understand the process. Not an obstacle to GA. Noleander (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Okay, the changes look good. It is a great article!! Passing for GA. Noleander (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Soliloquy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

As recently noted by theleekycauldron at WT:DYK, this GA contains significant amounts of poor sourcing, especially for a subject with as much scholarly coverage as this. Alongside citations to homework sites like SparkNotes and LitCharts are ones to WordPress, LiteraryTerms.net, TheatreHaus, and numerous other questionably-reliable sites. This article currently does not meet GA criterion 2b); I hope it can be improved up to the level necessary to remain a GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I’ll try to find better sources in time, but the best option may be just letting it go for now unless someone else wants to help. I’ve got a lot going on right now. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 11:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.