Unclosed tags in Recent Comments February 28, 2006 1:26 PM Subscribe
In My Recent Comments, one of the long comments was truncated in the middle of an < i>italicized section< /i>. Consequently, the italics weren't closed for the rest of My Recent Comments.
yeah, it's when someone posts a monster comment that gets cut off before the 8500 char limit. Still trying to think of a fix for that.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:30 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:30 PM on February 28, 2006
My fault for being too verbose.
posted by grumblebee at 1:38 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by grumblebee at 1:38 PM on February 28, 2006
How about one of you very many programming whizzes out there in MeFi land give Matt a hand with this? Please?
posted by caddis at 1:41 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by caddis at 1:41 PM on February 28, 2006
lemme test it here:
deanc, anything that adds to your enjoyment/appreciation of the play is great. I was talking about ghosts and sword fights that were gratuitous -- that work against the text (making you think more about the director/actors than the play itself). Like I said, I HAVE seen elaborate/wild versions that worked. They worked because the elaboration illuminated the text.
But one must be very careful that the experiment doesn't obscure the story. I was shockingly reminded of this recently. The ghost is an obvious choice for a director to have fun with. So almost every "Hamlet" I've ever seen has gone wild with the ghost. I've seen gratuitous ghosts that don't work; I've seen elaborate, experimental ghosts that DO work.
But about a year ago, I saw Trevor Nunn's "Hamlet." The ghost was very ordinary. He walked over to Hamlet, sat down next to him on a bench and talked. I realized that for the first time -- having seen dozens of Hamlets -- I was actually listening to what the ghost was saying, and that the ghost and Hamlet had a complex relationship, something more than fear and awe. Though nothing remarkable was happening via the staging, it was the most startling and original ghost I had ever seen.
I'm not suggesting that this is the only way to do the ghost.
I totally disagree that I don't do anything interesting in my productions (though naturally this depends on one's definition of interesting). The other day, I saw a video of Richard Eyre's "Lear." I was struck by an utterly original moment:
Gloucester (speaking of his son, Edmund): He hath been out nine years, and away he shall again.
In Eyre's production, Edmund looked on, rather bored, while his father said, "He hath been out (away) nine years." But then, when Gloucester added, "and away he shall again," Edmund looked completely stunned. Clearly, he had no idea that his father intended to send him away again.
I've seen many "Lears", but I've never seen that moment played that way before. It added a great little nuance to the father/son relationship.
This was just one of many such moments in Eyre's production, which was staged very simply. Had the staging been more grand and theatrical, I probably would have missed this nuance.
Obviously, some people find these little character moments more thrilling than other people do. Those who have spent years in college are more likely to be interested in big thematic events. To each his own. I find character/language subtleties to be HUGE and MEANINGFUL, and those are the original/interesting things I look for in my own and other-people's productions. It's those little moments (utterly different in each production) that make it worthwhile seeing the same play over and over. And Shakespeare is so rich that the plays contain almost an infinite possibility for each moment.
Here are some notes I made, years ago, for the most famous line in "Hamlet." When I'm preparing a production, I write a couple of pages like this for pretty much every line (sometimes every word). I'm too busy doing this to care much about whether to stage the ghost as an actor covered by a sheet or a hologram. Such effects -- to me -- pale in comparison to the nuance of language and character:
To be, or not to be,--that is the question:--
1. [spoken quickly, as one phrase] “to be or not to be” [reflecting on the phrase] That IS the question.
Emphasizing “is” works with the iambic rhythm (to Be or Not to Be that IS...). It implies that Hamlet is replying to an earlier thought (from his own head, since no one else is talking to him) along the lines of “What’s the point of thinking about life and death?” It’s similar to...
A: Why is there a lion here?
B: Well, that IS the point of a circus, isn’t it.
A: What’s the point of thinking about mortality, anyway?
B: Well, “to be or not to be.” That IS the question.
The same sense could be reached by emphasizing “the”. That is THE question.
2. 1. [spoken quickly, as one phrase] “to be or not to be” [reflecting on the phrase] THAT is the question.
By emphasizing “that”, the implication is that Hamlet is correcting a previous, erroneous thought about ANOTHER question.
A: Maybe I should be thinking about how to talk to my mother.
B. No...”To be or not to be.” THAT is the question.
This rubs against the grain of the rhythm, but the line is irregular anyway (extra syllable).
3. [As if this is the complete thought] To be. [Then, the other possibility occurs to him] Or not to be. [Laughs at the irony] Ha! That is the question!
Notes:
This will be hard to play if life/death are equal possibilities. Hamlet should want to die and then try to talk himself out of it. Or, he should want to live, and try to talk himself into dieing (actor can try each on different nights). The choice will wildly change the reading of the speech.
Who is H talking to? Self? If so, we should work out a couple of “personalities,” so that the speech becomes active. There can be the die “personality” and the live “personality”. Audience? Does H assume they are on his side or hostile? Is he talking to a trusted friend or trying to convince a foe? Again, it would be interesting to vary this because each will lead to a different performance.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:06 PM on February 28, 2006
deanc, anything that adds to your enjoyment/appreciation of the play is great. I was talking about ghosts and sword fights that were gratuitous -- that work against the text (making you think more about the director/actors than the play itself). Like I said, I HAVE seen elaborate/wild versions that worked. They worked because the elaboration illuminated the text.
But one must be very careful that the experiment doesn't obscure the story. I was shockingly reminded of this recently. The ghost is an obvious choice for a director to have fun with. So almost every "Hamlet" I've ever seen has gone wild with the ghost. I've seen gratuitous ghosts that don't work; I've seen elaborate, experimental ghosts that DO work.
But about a year ago, I saw Trevor Nunn's "Hamlet." The ghost was very ordinary. He walked over to Hamlet, sat down next to him on a bench and talked. I realized that for the first time -- having seen dozens of Hamlets -- I was actually listening to what the ghost was saying, and that the ghost and Hamlet had a complex relationship, something more than fear and awe. Though nothing remarkable was happening via the staging, it was the most startling and original ghost I had ever seen.
I'm not suggesting that this is the only way to do the ghost.
I totally disagree that I don't do anything interesting in my productions (though naturally this depends on one's definition of interesting). The other day, I saw a video of Richard Eyre's "Lear." I was struck by an utterly original moment:
Gloucester (speaking of his son, Edmund): He hath been out nine years, and away he shall again.
In Eyre's production, Edmund looked on, rather bored, while his father said, "He hath been out (away) nine years." But then, when Gloucester added, "and away he shall again," Edmund looked completely stunned. Clearly, he had no idea that his father intended to send him away again.
I've seen many "Lears", but I've never seen that moment played that way before. It added a great little nuance to the father/son relationship.
This was just one of many such moments in Eyre's production, which was staged very simply. Had the staging been more grand and theatrical, I probably would have missed this nuance.
Obviously, some people find these little character moments more thrilling than other people do. Those who have spent years in college are more likely to be interested in big thematic events. To each his own. I find character/language subtleties to be HUGE and MEANINGFUL, and those are the original/interesting things I look for in my own and other-people's productions. It's those little moments (utterly different in each production) that make it worthwhile seeing the same play over and over. And Shakespeare is so rich that the plays contain almost an infinite possibility for each moment.
Here are some notes I made, years ago, for the most famous line in "Hamlet." When I'm preparing a production, I write a couple of pages like this for pretty much every line (sometimes every word). I'm too busy doing this to care much about whether to stage the ghost as an actor covered by a sheet or a hologram. Such effects -- to me -- pale in comparison to the nuance of language and character:
To be, or not to be,--that is the question:--
1. [spoken quickly, as one phrase] “to be or not to be” [reflecting on the phrase] That IS the question.
Emphasizing “is” works with the iambic rhythm (to Be or Not to Be that IS...). It implies that Hamlet is replying to an earlier thought (from his own head, since no one else is talking to him) along the lines of “What’s the point of thinking about life and death?” It’s similar to...
A: Why is there a lion here?
B: Well, that IS the point of a circus, isn’t it.
A: What’s the point of thinking about mortality, anyway?
B: Well, “to be or not to be.” That IS the question.
The same sense could be reached by emphasizing “the”. That is THE question.
2. 1. [spoken quickly, as one phrase] “to be or not to be” [reflecting on the phrase] THAT is the question.
By emphasizing “that”, the implication is that Hamlet is correcting a previous, erroneous thought about ANOTHER question.
A: Maybe I should be thinking about how to talk to my mother.
B. No...”To be or not to be.” THAT is the question.
This rubs against the grain of the rhythm, but the line is irregular anyway (extra syllable).
3. [As if this is the complete thought] To be. [Then, the other possibility occurs to him] Or not to be. [Laughs at the irony] Ha! That is the question!
Notes:
This will be hard to play if life/death are equal possibilities. Hamlet should want to die and then try to talk himself out of it. Or, he should want to live, and try to talk himself into dieing (actor can try each on different nights). The choice will wildly change the reading of the speech.
Who is H talking to? Self? If so, we should work out a couple of “personalities,” so that the speech becomes active. There can be the die “personality” and the live “personality”. Audience? Does H assume they are on his side or hostile? Is he talking to a trusted friend or trying to convince a foe? Again, it would be interesting to vary this because each will lead to a different performance.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:06 PM on February 28, 2006
I can't tell, Matt, because the offending comment is no longer on my "my comment's" page (because there have been too many subsequent posts)
posted by grumblebee at 2:07 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by grumblebee at 2:07 PM on February 28, 2006
Matt, I've been exchanging emails with Jess, and she's trying to fix the problem by messing with the em tags, so you might want to coordinate with her. Otherwise, you'll try one fix, she'll try another, and your fixes will clash!
posted by grumblebee at 2:09 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by grumblebee at 2:09 PM on February 28, 2006
I just tested that monster comment I posted here, and it adds closing italics, closing bold, and a closing link tag on super-long cut off comments.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:10 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:10 PM on February 28, 2006
That's what I call speedy service. I'm email your manager and tell him you do good work.
posted by grumblebee at 2:11 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by grumblebee at 2:11 PM on February 28, 2006
"Still trying to think of a fix for that."
I recommend neutering.
posted by mischief at 2:48 PM on February 28, 2006
I recommend neutering.
posted by mischief at 2:48 PM on February 28, 2006
MeFites take note: instead of harping on Matt for whatever your pet administrative peeve is you can now innundate blag with your e-mails, nasty phone calls and whatever else you cook up. Super!
Good luck with that, blag.
posted by raedyn at 2:49 PM on February 28, 2006
Good luck with that, blag.
posted by raedyn at 2:49 PM on February 28, 2006
Ha! I had no comments in this thread, so couldn't test out whether My Recent Comments works correctly now. But I was able to discover that My Recent Posts is still broken. Not such a surprise when you think about it...
posted by Aknaton at 3:52 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by Aknaton at 3:52 PM on February 28, 2006
Welcome to Blag's Automated Pony Service. Please use your telephone keypad to enter the user number of the member you want banned, followed by the hash key.posted by blag at 4:00 PM on February 28, 2006
My Recent Posts is still broken
What's broken about it?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:19 PM on February 28, 2006
What's broken about it?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:19 PM on February 28, 2006
It was broken in exactly the same way as My Recent Comments had been, except the offender was your test post rather than grumblebee's. Dunno if it's broken now, as your test post has scrolled off My Recent Posts.
posted by Aknaton at 5:11 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by Aknaton at 5:11 PM on February 28, 2006
The newline-to-<br> doesn't seem to be working in my recent comments in this thread. Each comment is one long line.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:35 PM on February 28, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 8:35 PM on February 28, 2006
OK, the problem I reported above seems to be affecting every blue thread in 'my comments'. Am I the only one with no line breaks?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:14 PM on March 1, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:14 PM on March 1, 2006
I commented in that thread, and it doesn't seem to be affecting mycomments for me, IIHAA. I'm using the plain stylesheet, though, so that might make a difference.
posted by raedyn at 1:36 PM on March 1, 2006
posted by raedyn at 1:36 PM on March 1, 2006
IIHAA: I have teh same problem, on all browsers and all platforms.
posted by lodurr at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by lodurr at 7:24 AM on March 3, 2006
Yay for not being crazy (on that count). I kept meaning to post my browser/platform (FF 1.5.01 on XP/FF 1.0.6 on linux -- the regular stylesheet).
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:46 AM on March 3, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by grumblebee at 1:29 PM on February 28, 2006