Talk:The Nightmare

Sources

The bibliography I have added to the Henry Fuseli page might offer some good sources for this page, particularly Henry Fuseli: The Nightmare. Awadewit | talk 20:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Hi Jclerman: you asked in an inline comment why I don't discuss changes on the talk page. I've been a little impatient with some of your edits because they seem to contradict best practices for articles. My concerns are the need for referencing (not that I'm slavish about it), the use of see-alsos, and listing a "further reading" item as a "reference". I'd also like to note that you consistently don't use edit summaries. (Usually, I think the editor who has added the vast majority of the substantive content to an article is the one who asks why another editor didn't discuss their changes on the talk page.)

The list of "see alsos" is extraneous and not particularly relevant to an article on a painting. Wikipedia recommends making the see-also section as short as possible, if not eliminating it – and in any case, not linking terms under "see also" that are already linked in the text, such as "Nightmare" and "Hag". Entering a long list of see-alsos linking to every aspect of the sleep experience almost touches on original research as well, in my opinion. See WP:SEEALSO.

You placed the E. Jones book under references, but I'm not sure how was it consulted in writing the article? It may be mentioned in the text, but that doesn't make it a reference. In fact, your text says that Jones doesn't mention the painting in his writings. So I commented out the book because it doesn't belong under References.

You mention waking dreams in the article, but in the dozen or so references I've consulted in writing this, I've not seen a mention of this term. A reference would be helpful.

You seem quite interested in subjects related to sleep, but I hope you will agree that an article on a painting, whether or not it's titled Nightmare, does not need to be a repository of links to articles about sleep! I have been thinking of improving this article to a degree that might make it "featured", so if you can provide any referenced material from the many Fuseli books out there, that would be great. –Outriggr § 00:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

This is quite good - such a fascinating and haunting painting! I just have a few little picky things.

• The canvas seems to portray simultaneously a dreaming woman and the subjective content of her nightmare. - I am not really sure what "subjective content" means - I don't think "subjective" is quite the right word there.
  • I just removed "subjective"--"content of her nightmare" should be good.
• The first first paragraph of the article proper seemed to dive right in. What do you think about starting with the second paragraph, which is the description of the painting, and inserting the first paragraph where the other dream material is, in what is now the third paragraph?
  • Oddly, I thought the first paragraph was better as the first para, to provide some context about Fuseli and this painting. Unfortunately my writing on these subjects makes paragraph order almost arbitrary, and I do agree about moving the description para to be the first.
• As far as I know from my research on The Loves of the Plants (I wrote that little page), Fuseli only designed the frontispiece - William Blake did the rest, so I don't think you can say he "illustrated" it.
  • I'm sure the source (which I can't find) said there were multiple illustrations, but you must be right! I didn't expect to conjure up links to your articles in this one--a nice surprise. Changed.
• Best not to say "obvious sexual themes" - best to explain them - just in case someone doesn't see them.
  • OK.
• The writer and the artist shared an interest in dreams; both experimented with the contemporary belief that eating rotted meat would induce nightmares. - This doesn't seem that important and is just kind of hanging off of the end of the paragraph.
  • I thought giving information on the rather whacky set of contemporary beliefs about nightmares would make the article more interesting, but there is no good place for this tidbit, so it's deleted.
    • Perhaps in the History of nightmares page? :) Awadewit | talk 09:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• The "Legacy" section starts to feel a little listy at the end, but I never know how to fix this.
  • I subsectioned it, but I agree.
• The "See also" list seems irrelevant to me.
  • I needed someone else to say that.
    • Understood. Awadewit | talk 09:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• There were two quotations without citations that I tagged.
  • Citations added. I thought the single citation already in each paragraph would implicitly suggest the source. Now that I think about it, the text is also the citation: Frankenstein and House of Usher... Anyway, added.
    • With quotations I just think it is best to be explicit. Awadewit | talk 09:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A pleasure to read. (By the way, I have a very rough draft going on Boydell and his Shakespeare gallery, if you want to work on that with me. I have all of the sources - I just have to rewrite an essay I wrote once, basically, and put in all of the notes. It is more of a writing exercise than a research exercise at this point.) Awadewit | talk 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll reply below the points. I think everything is in order now. –Outriggr § 09:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well done. Awadewit | talk 09:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Into French! Yay! –Outriggr § 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Surviving versions

Any pics of the other two surviving versions? They get a very cursory treatment at the moment. Andplus 00:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't find any. Very little is said of them in the sources I've reviewed. Tomory was the only book I could consult that was dedicated to Fuseli. It confused me by showing a third item (this is from memory) that was titled Nightmare and was a sketch that included a horse and rider jumping out a bedroom window. It was not a "variation" on the main painting, yet all evidence suggests that the other two versions are mild variations. From my skimming of that book I couldn't find any more information about or illustration of the other two. –Outriggr § 05:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That will probably be one of the two shown here: [1] I just find it strange that there doesn't seem to be any record of the other versions: you'd think the holding galleries would be quite eager to let people know they had them (unless they are tucked away in a private collection somewhere) or there'd be some mention of them when the original was exhibited. The article is coming on nicely though - I saw it in a plate of a book I was browsing through yesterday and thought I'd come back for another look. Andplus 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's it (An Incubus Leaving Two Sleeping Women). I like this parody, overkill is so funny. I still don't feel like I've seen this painting. The book reproduction had reddish and yellow stripes, I think, on the first blanket under the woman—you'd have no idea from the current JPG. I think I am done with the article , incidentally (except for another arbitrary copyedit for jaggies), unless you have any ideas and sources for further content. –Outriggr § 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Art (the above mentioned book) has a couple of paragraphs which somewhat damn it as a hotchpotch of styles (though I'm not sure the intention wasn't to praise it) and suggests the horse as a common sexual symbol quite aside from its penetration through the curtains. A quick skim of Google books shows that a popular tale held that Fuseli conceived the painting after dining on raw (or half raw) pork. Perhaps Nicolai Abraham Abildgaard's version Image:Abildgaard Nightmare.jpg is worth mentioning. Andplus 01:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'd been meaning to add the general notion of horse as sexual symbol. I made an attempt to add the meat-eating anecdote but Awadewit suggested it was integrated poorly, which was true. I hadn't seen the Abildgaard painting before... do feel free to add to the article. P.S. My pet painting article is now The Heart of the Andes. Still formative. –Outriggr § 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of nightmare

The explanation in the article appears to be incorrect, disagreeing as it does with the relevant parts of the Nightmare and Mare articles. May I alter it? Melaena (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I haven't checked the other articles--are they sourced? The etymology that I originally provided in this article was from art-related sources; since then it has been modified by another editor who said it was incorrect. With any luck the original was more correct, but probably not. Will you add a replacement etymology? Outriggr (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the last definition (the one that was changed by another user), and it seems to agree with other sources - ie that the link between the word nightmare and horses is tangential at best. I will try to resurrect it if it has a reference Melaena (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

References to the painting

just if this is interesting for anyone: This painting appears in the PC game "11th hour", which was written by Trilobyte some years ago (i don't remember when exactly). Someone who calls himself "TheVoiceOfDogSA" published a video named "Lets play 11h" (or similar) on YouTube, where this may be seen. Something I'd like to know: I can't give a "citation" in printed form, are things on the web valid cites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.158.110 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

From catalan

@Outriggr: @Jclerman: @Yomangani: Hey im from viquipèdia (catalan), and i'm tryin to translate the Erasmus Darwin's poem and i don't know the meaning (or the word) in my language or spanish "O'er", somebody can explain that, please? Lot of thanks!!--Metralleta95 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• it is an alternate way to write the word "over", used in poetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.54.44 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Albtraum

According to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Albtraum (German word for nightmare) "Elf Dream" is because nightmares in some forms of German folklore are thought to be caused by an elf sitting on one's chest while one slept. Is that worth mentioning in the article? Not sure how to cite it but it is mostly confirmed (in German) at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albtraum#Etymologie CaGlwwWEDymzc7KBQC8u (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Poor Picture

It seems the picture being used has quite inaccurate colors, and appears to be a recoloring by an individual. I propose that an alternative picture that is closer in form to the original be used. I am basing this judgement by comparing to a rendering in Janson’s History of Art. Perhaps someone with more experience with the piece can comment. I see there are some images, while smaller, that are closer to what I see in my art book. I propose we use one of those images.47.144.156.90 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This image: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Johann_Heinrich_F%C3%BCssli_-_The_Nightmare_-_WGA08332.jpg appears to be a good substitute.47.144.156.90 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Is using "incubus" in the description of the painting accurate?

I am not particularly knowledgeable on this individual piece or folklore in general (though I do have a particular interest in folklore) but in initially reading "incubus" in the description, it seemed off to me. I came to this article through the Mare (folklore) article, which I'm not sure is informing me of what the creature should accurately be described as or giving me bias as to what it should be described as, but either way, I believe mare would be a more accurate description of the creature. The "overt sexuality" of the painting does make me doubt myself, but the creature doesn't seem to fit my understanding of what an incubus would look like. I would also note that the creature is described as "demonic" while an incubus is specifically a type of demon, though this is probably just me being pedantic. I don't want to get off-topic and discuss the content of another article in here, but seeing as a mare and an incubus are (in my understanding) wholly different creatures, I don't believe the creature should be described as an incubus while this painting is used as an example of a "mare" in the mare article, as these seem to me like they are giving conflicting information. DylanGdS (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Dylan, don’t really understand what you are trying to say. See more here. Ceoil (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I may have overcomplicated what I was trying to say. I think "mare" is a more accurate description of the creature in the painting than "incubus." The article Mare (folklore) says that mares "[walk] on people's chests while they sleep, bringing on nightmares." I think the connection here is obvious due to the name of the painting. Despite their connection to sleep, incubuses do not have any connection to nightmares in particular, while mares do. DylanGdS (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. I have listed some of my concerns below:

• There is an empty "Legacy" sections, with an orange banner since July 2024.
• There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
• There are some sources listed in "Further reading" that should be considered as inline citations or removed from the article.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The Nightmare

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 • GAN review not found

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an empty "Legacy" section with an orange banner in it since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, do you intend to work on this article further? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi AirshipJungleman29, yes...but is overall in pretty good condition. Will ping when finished. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems restored to GA to me now. Pinging Z1720, AirshipJungleman29. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Ceoil: The "Exhibition" section has some blockquote coding that needs to be fixed, and I think the poem quoted should be removed as the prose can summarise the poem instead. I added a cn tag about the Detroit Institute of Arts. The lead should have information about the artwork's influence, including info about the literature and visual arts it inspired. Overall, this is very close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 agree, the lead could be expanded via info from the body. Will ping when done. Have trimmed the poem, and your cn tag has been addressed by another editor. Thanks both. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, can I get another two weeks on this....have other commitments here, but is a painting and article am very fond of. Ceoil (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: No concerns, I'm not in a rush. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: There seemed to be nothing left to do here after the work mentioned above but to write a few lines in the lead, so I've done that. The article is good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• My only remaining concern is that Note A needs a citation, and the source used should also verify the information in the text of the article that Note A is citing. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've cited the text that the note follows. I can't see any source for the note itself, so I've hidden it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Concerns are resolved, no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Dont think the additions to the lead very very good, but whatever. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Others have criticised me for being too strict in my reviews: I am happy to defer to subject-matter experts if they feel there are problems with any parts of the article, and happy to take a closer look if requested. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I don't at all think you are too strict and you might have noticed I muchly welcome your reviews, but perhalps you open too many reviews, but at the same time am very happy FAR is still going. Anyways, no harm here I hope, am catching up with a better lead. Another hour and will be sorted. Ceoil (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, have rewritten the lead. The original nominator was a good friend back in the day but the article had degraded; hope the new version stands up. Open to feedback. Ceoil (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2024 (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.