Talk:The Real Inspector Hound

Puckeridge and Higgs

I don't know if Puckeridge and Higgs should be included as characters, as they are only mentioned and discussed by the characters and never actually appear within the play. 203.54.133.92 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't remember if that was the case or not. If they're only mentioned in dialogue, they certainly aren't characters - I've removed them. --McGeddon 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised, Puckeridge does turn up at the end of the play, but in the guise of one of the characters in the play-within-the-play, who turns out to be another long-lost character (It's all very convoluted). But cast lists do not refer to him, as he is already in the role of Magnus at the beginning. Best just to leave it the way it is now, I think, for simplicity's sake. 203.54.133.92 11:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as a summary, Major Magnus Muldoon is Puckeridge in disguise. He is part of a cast which plot to kill the critics - Birdboot and Moon. Magnus is revealed as Puckeridge at the end of the play after both critics have been shot dead. Higgs is dead on stage from the start of the play - as discovered by Birdboot in the second half of the production. Confusing isn't it at first? ;-) Lradrama 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that both Puckeridge and Higgs need to be included, as they are a central to what Moon is doing what, and why. Attack Rhino (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that one would have to come up with a rigorous definition of "appearing in the play." Higgs is present on stage, but dead. Puckeridge appears, but cast lists call him Magnus, because his identity as Puckeridge is not known until the end of the play. I guess that if Puckeridge is to be considered an appearing character, so is Albert (as a character in the play within a play). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta G^0 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Premiere

I think it's a good idea to have a section detailing the cast of the first production - better than the sentence we have at the moment. I'll do it soon. Lradrama 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

Good to see a lot of new editors contributing over the past couple of days - is this a collaborative effort from a university class or Stoppard group? Although there's a lot of great writing and insight here, I'm afraid that Wikipedia discourages "original research", and a lot of this does seem to be original, unpublished thought, which will eventually have to be cut down and deleted. Wikipedia articles should be built from the existing, published work of respected critics, rather than the observations and conclusions of individual, amateur editors, however well-written.

The "Wikipedia:No original research" article explains the policy in more detail. (If I'm misreading the edits and you're actually all drawing from existing critics, then WP:CITE explains how sources should be cited.) If you've got any questions, you can leave them on this talk page or on mine. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Context & Values: Cultural and societal influences

This paragraph is irrelevant and exceedingly poorly written, though it does win unintentional comedy points for claiming that only in 1960 did people "[begin] to realise that crimes did not occur quite as formulaically as often portrayed in golden age films." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.245.1 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the context of this play needs to be brought back, as it first goes on about how society was changing in the world, but does not relate to to the play, or even England. Secondly, the lines about the crime fiction and it's context needs to be strengthened. I for one cannot add to this, and I sadly do not know enough about this play, but I do know it needs to be fixed.

Thanks, Attack Rhino (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Convolution

This article seems somewhat convoluted to me. There are a lot of double statements and the paragraphs don't seem to follow in logical order. I think that we need a cleanup warning on this page. I'd put one on myself, but I don't actually know how (kinda new to this).

So there. :-P (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Readers"

This article needs serious cleaning up with regards to OR and POV issues. However, an easy fix that someone could do would be to remove all references to "readers" of the play. As a dramatic wrok, it's not intended to be read, but seen, so critical commentary and encyclopdeic content should reflect this. References should instead be to the auidence. I'll try to come back to do this if no-one else has time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.220.139 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Poor Content

I have removed a lot of content on this page which was incredibly vague, incredibly misinformed, incredibly unencylopedic and which, in my opinion, took away from the article more than it added. That was reverted on the grounds that it was vandalism. Let me be clear--that was not vandalism.--Bajazeth. And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - this looks like textbook WP:NOTESSAY, being the opinions and analysis of a collection of Wikipedia editors. From an earlier thread on this page I noticed it pouring in back in January 2008, but nobody bothered to respond - I'd guess it was a well-meaning English teacher encouraging some students to write a group essay, without understanding Wikipedia policy. I've cut the disputed content. --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)