I'm hoping to send this article to FAC soon. I've remedied the only concern raised during the GA process, and I stand ready to receive other feedback. Thanks in advance for your comments. –
Scartol •
Tok17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi Scartol--thanks for the invitation to review this. Now, I've only been through two pages so far, but I'll mention what I have mainly to beat Awadewit here. :)
The article often refers to "metaphysics" and "philosophy" together. In general, is there any way to clarify meaning here? Can metaphysics as used in the article be glossed for the reader? And one is a subset of the other—is the article implying a historical difference in the meaning of "metaphysics" when the book was written? Either way, would anything be lost by writing just "metaphysics and philosophy"—or alternately, explaining the "other" philosophy. It's probably there later, I just haven't gotten that far. :)
Yes, good point. I've differentiated and/or eliminated extra wordiness as necessary throughout the article. Let me know if you find any that I've missed. –
Scartol •
Tok17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
In the lead, I wasn't sure what "These details" referred to. The prior paragraph is not so different in content from this paragraph, so to me, "These details combine with events from the author's life..." becomes "Events from the author's life combine with events from the author's life...". :)
Also in this paragraph, you talk about a work within a work, and I found it a little unclear at times which work you were talking about. The sentence "It examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in the story until much later in his life" is the trouble. "It" is the essay, but we get to "in the story" and we've changed gears back to the novel; I don't know, then, what contrast the "although" provides. This sentence would make more sense to me if you meant "[the essay] examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in [the essay] until much later in his life".
I will make a few ce tweaks. I'd like to put birth–death dates after Swedenborg (like Balzac has now) as a little hint to the uninformed that the character in the novel is fascinated with a real philosopher.
Thanks for these, Outr. I'll make some replies and repairs later today or tomorrow. Just FYI: I put the mention of the Études philosophiques section back into the first lead ¶, since that's the standard we've agreed upon at
WP:BALZAC. Most folks who study Balzac look for that info straightaway. –
Scartol •
Tok14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
That was a little bold of me, but I decided the opening sentence was a little packed with French titles and we'd be back to discuss Études philosophiques later (indeed, in the fourth para of the lead still). I didn't realize there was a WP:BALZAC! (Has anyone informed
User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back?) I'll finish reading the last two thirds at my own, horribly slow pace, by which time you and Awadewit will have honed to perfection everything I could possibly have commented on. Cheers! –
Outriggr§21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)reply
"The actual events of Louis Lambert are minor..." Is minor the right word here? Are you suggesting that, again, there is not much plot, or that the events are minor as in unimportant? Or minor in comparison to the novel's philosophical discussions?
"like (in some ways) the title character's eventual madness"—this thought seems too brief. Could we get a little background on how Balzac considered himself to be somewhat "mad" by the time of the novel, or am I misconstruing? Are the critics saying that Balzac may not have intended this autobiographical similarity? ... Later... I see this is treated in "Genius and madness". A little stealing from that section, perhaps?
I've tried to clarify this. I hate "see below" comments in WP articles, so I've tried to avoid it. Hopefully I've made things more clear. –
Scartol •
Tok15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I missed this earlier. "Madame de Staël" is a real person, which me not know. Can this be hinted at in "Plot", with a re-introduction in "Swedenborg and metaphysics", where she is mentioned again?
With "These concepts are explored with relation to...", I have the same difficulty I had with "these details". Strictly, I am not able to relate the dream example to anything mentioned in the prior paragraph. Even "Swedenborg's concepts" would be an easy way out. "These concepts" appears again in the last paragraph of the sectoin. Finally, in "a force flowing between and among humans", are "between" and "among" both needed? Suggesting between two humans and among humanity, I suppose.
Okay, I've tried to clarify all of this. I personally think the "these concepts" wording is okay, but I'll defer to the reader, since I'm obviously not an objective party. =) –
Scartol •
Tok15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Something I just thought of: if "Traité de la Volonté" is an essay, should it be in quotes rather than italicized? Do your references do otherwise? If so, they win!
Those are my comments. I did some tweaking in the article, however much of it is personal taste I leave for others to judge. I would support this at FAC. Again, thanks for the invitation–one of the rare pleasures on wp is to be asked to be involved in some small way in the few articles that have some real thought and research going into them. Cheers, –
Outriggr§06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I have very few comments - I ended up just reading the article and had to start over again to look for things to comment about! I think that is a good sign!
Published under a variety of titles, Louis Lambert contains a minimal plot, focusing mostly on the metaphysical ideas of its boy-genius protagonist and his only friend (eventually revealed to be Balzac himself). - What is the connection between the title information and the plot information? Perhaps two sentences?
Although it is not considered an important example of the realist style for which Balzac became famous, the novel is cited frequently as providing insight into the author's own childhood. - a little wordy
An important essay referenced in the novel, Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"), was in fact composed by Balzac as a student. - I feel like the important information is buried in this sentence.
I took another look at this comment and I think I see what you mean; sorry for the confusion. I changed it to: While he was a student at Vendôme, Balzac wrote an essay called Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"); it is described in the novel as being written by Louis Lambert. –
Scartol •
Tok16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
The novel emphasizes thought, particularly its expression among young thinkers and in written forms - a little awkward
Not long after finishing the first version of the book, while infatuated with the Marquise de Castries, Balzac sent to her a fragmented love letter, as Lambert sends one to his paramour Pauline - a bit wordy
Could you say a little more about the reception? Who reviewed the book poorly? What publications? What did they say exactly?
Not really. I haven't been able to find much actual criticism, but there may be info in a book which I got recently. I'll see what I can add, but I doubt it will be much. –
Scartol •
Tok16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Hey, I found a specific detail – it was about how HdB was being godless and anti-family, so it feels weird to add it without anything concrete about (what sources say is) the major problem of thin plot. But it's interesting, at least. –
Scartol •
Tok01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Did this book not influence any other writers? (Just checking!)
If it did, no one ever admitted it. =) None of the sources mentioned anything about anyone (aside from his paramours, quoted in the article) citing it as an influence. –
Scartol •
Tok16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Again, you were right and I was wrong. Apparently Flaubert was influenced enough to duplicate parts of the plot in his story "La Spirale". (Alas, I can't seem to find a copy online.) I added a few sentences about it. –
Scartol •
Tok01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)reply