Talk:Candide/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Comments from Awadewit

I am very impressed with the work that has gone into this very important article. I would say that there are four areas that the article could improve on:

1) The plot synopsis is much too long. Readers are going to get bogged down in this section of the article and not make it to the meat of the article. I would suggest not dividing it up by chapters or even necessarily trying to tell the plot in the same order as the book. Try to list the most important things to yourself and then find the best way to present those plot items to the reader. I would aim for no more that five or seven long paragraphs. This is supposed to be a plot summary! (I realize how hard this is, but it is necessary.) (See Hamlet for an example of a plot summary that includes some detail of a rather complicated plot.)
I will work very hard on this.
I've cut it down (and organised it) into 20 short paragraphs. I'll come back to it later for further trimming and copyediting. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to tell this plot in the order of the book, because of the nature of Candide in which few events have any lasting significance. When I try to list the most important things that happen, I end up with a disconnected list of evils, almost all unrelated and incidental. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • He is drawn romantically to Cunégonde, a character thought to be modeled after Voltaire's mistresses: his niece Marie Louise Mignot Denis and the scientist Émilie du Châtelet. - This is an interesting tidbit of information, but it doesn't mean much to a reader unfamiliar with Voltaire. I would remove it or place it in a footnote and explain its meaning more clearly.
Done.
  • Dr. Pangloss, professor of "métaphysico-théologo-cosmolonigologie" and self-proclaimed Optimist, may have been based on Louisa Dorothea von Meiningen, duchess of Saxe-Gotha, a Leibnizian with whom Voltaire corresponded regularly. - This is a better explanation of the connection between the biographical information and the text, because readers know the book is about Leibnizian ideas (even if they have only a vague idea of what that means).
Understood.
  • Are all of the details of the old woman's story necessary? Can this not be drastically reduced to a few sentences? (This is one place to cut, I think.)
I did this.
  • Cunégonde may be associated symbolically with Eve, as Candide with Adam (see Gardens), Sentences like this should be left out of the plot summary - the information is obviously going to be repeated and better explained later.
It's redundant with the information in "Gardens". I took it out. -- Rmrfstar (talk)
2) Everything needs to be explained in the reader in a clear and orderly fashion. It is difficult, but you have to try and put yourself in the shoes of a reader who doesn't know much about Voltaire or Candide. This page will attract many readers who simply don't have a lot of background knowledge.
  • EX: A number of significant historical events and literary works inspired Voltaire to write Candide. - This statement is a bit vague - is there a way to characterize these events - is there a way to make this topic sentence more specific? What kinds of historical events and literary works?
I changed this.
  • EX: Another source of inspiration may have been the German personality - "Another" is a weak transition - is there a way you could work the German material into the previous paragraph or construct a stronger transition?
I came up with a new transition.
  • EX: The third paragraph of "Background" needs a broader topic sentence that will cover all of the sources of inspiration mentioned. Currently the first sentence deals only with Gulliver, but the paragraph deals with more than that.
I came up with a new transition for here, also.
  • EX: I wonder if perhaps we have to make it clearer in "Lisbon earthquake and Voltaire's disillusionment" why it was that Voltaire was disillusioned. I think we have to set up that chain of reasoning a little more clearly for people who will not already know the circumstances. So, for example, describe Optimism, describe the earthquake, and then describe why Voltaire was disillusioned.
OK.
  • EX: The publication process was extremely secretive, likely the "most clandestine work of the century". - I would add an explanation to the "Publication" section about why the publication process had to be so secretive - perhaps just a few sentences.
I did it in eight words.
  • EX: The "Satire" and "Picaresque" sections need explicit examples. Rather than having such a long plot summary, I would urge you to select quotations and examples from Candide that scholars use to illustrate the satire and use them here. The sections are a little vague right now.
I added a specific example to "Satire" which I, in turn, removed from the synopsis.
  • EX: These gardens share biblical references and are each symbolically significant. - I would explain what the references are and what is "significant" about the symbolism. I will do the same for "Picaresque".
I reworded the statement in "Gardens" to be weaker, more direct and simply supported by the rest of the paragraph. I don't see what else is to be done for "picaresque" references, as there is a whole section on this satire.
  • EX: Immediately after publication, both the work and its author were denounced by secular and religious authorities alike - Most readers will not understand why - we have to explain all of this to them.
'K.
3) The organization of the article could be improved slightly, so that like topics are grouped together. Very little expansion is needed, however.
  • The "Conclusion" section is a bit repetitive - I think it can be trimmed down. Also, there are some obvious statements like There is not one meaning to Candide but many meanings on many different levels. I think that some of the material in "Conclusion" would work better in the "Optimism" section (perhaps "Conclusion" should be a subsection of "Optimism"?) and some material in it should be part of "Gardens".
I've shifted this around and made the material, I think, less repetitive.
  • I moved the "Conclusion" and "Inside/outside" controversy section to the "Style and themes" section because they are not separate from a discussion of the book - they are not criticism any more than the other material presented in that section.
I've done something else entirely with these sections.
  • The only section that needs any significant expansion at this stage is the "Reception and legacy" section. You might want to discuss Candide's reception beyond the 18th century a bit more.
I have looked, and I, (quite surprisingly), cannot find such information. I don't know where else to look.
4) Once the editors have undertaken major revisions, I would suggest soliciting a copy edit from a good copy editor who hasn't worked much on this article. There are some redudancies and instances of awkward syntax that could be easily fixed by someone unfamiliar with the article.
5) Other comments:
  • The La Vallière Manuscript, the most original and authentic of all surviving editions, was likely dictated by Voltaire to his secretary, Wagnière, then edited directly. - Since this is a manuscript, should it be called an "edition"? I'm just not sure.
I don't think it should. I've changed the wording.
  • In addition to this manuscript, there is believed to have been another, one copied by Wagnière for the Elector Charles-Théodore, who hosted Voltaire during the summer of 1758. The existence of this copy was supposed by Norman L. Torrey in 1929. - Do other scholars support this supposition?
I changed this statement to be "first postulated" so that it is less misleading. The answer is yes.
  • As the initially naïve protagonist eventually comes to a mature conclusion – however noncommittal – the novella is bildungsroman, or at least a parody of one - Do some critics say the work is a bildungsroman and some say it is a parody of one? That is a very big difference and their different viewpoints should be clearly differentiated.
No one says that Candide is a serious bildungsroman. I will change the wording to make this clear.
  • As the only work of Voltaire's which has stood the test of time,[81] Candide is listed in The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages. It has been named as one of the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die and one of the 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written. It is included in the Encyclopædia Britannica collection Great Books of the Western World.[1] - I don't know about this list. It seems a little arbitrary.
This is nearly all I could find on the continuing appreciation of Candide. From what I've read, I think these are notable lists.
  • I would add the names of the artists and engravers to the illustrations (when you know that information).
You mean the two about the monkeys and the slave? That information is on their respective image pages. Including it would make the captions unnecessarily long. I don't know the artist/engraver of the frontispiece, and I expect that information would be difficult to find. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope these comments were helpful and I look forward to seeing this article promoted through GAC and eventually FAC. (If you're interested, I have developed a checklist for getting an article to FAC. It has worked pretty well for me in the past. It's on my userpage.) Awadewit | talk 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your helpful comments. I hope to address them all thoroughly and quickly. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit comments

Part 1

  • "Candide (meaning "ingenuous")" In what language does Candide mean ingenuous? In English, or in French? Or is it not even a word at all? Assuming it is in French, consider replacing meaning with French for.
It's not even a word at all. I added a link to Wiktionary, though, which should clarify the etymology.
  • "its author pokes fun" Surely there is a more encyclopedic way of phrasing this..?
How about "ridicules"?
  • "...as part of the Western canon and taught perhaps more than..." Perhaps does not belong in an encyclopedia. Perhaps really means "Someone notable thinks this is true, but I'm too lazy to say who it is."
I took out the word.
  • "the book was condemned and banned numerous times" Was the book banned numerous times by a single authority? Or was it banned by numerous distinct authorities?
I reworded this sentence.
  • "These stereotypes, according to Voltaire biographer Alfred Owen Aldridge, include "extreme credulousness or sentimental simplicity", which are Candide's defining qualities." This sentence doesn't really work structurally unless another connecting word is added, such as which.
I reworded the sentence.
  • "Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) is widely thought to be Candide' closest literary relative" Widely thought, eh? Sounds like argumentum ad populum to me.
Well this isn't really an argument (nor argumentum). But my usage of weasel words is deplorable.
  • "As evidenced by a number of similar passages," Are the passages in Candide similar to each other? Or are they similar to passages in Gulliver's Travels?
Reworded.
  • How can a tsunami and a fire afflict a city at the same time? One must cancel out the other, no?
No: this isn't Pokémon. See 1755 Lisbon Earthquake.
  • "These natural disasters, which killed many people for no obvious reason" I think what you're trying to convey is that philosophers couldn't understand why a benevolent god would create such natural disasters. What it actually says is that philosophers couldn't understand why fires and tsunamis could be so dangerous, or why people would be stupid enough to get killed by them.
Got it.
  • The first paragraph of the Lisbon earthquake and Voltaire's disillusionment section is more about Optimism than about Voltaire. I would just wikilink Optimism, cut out the unnecessary explanation of it, and merge the two paragraphs into one. I would even consider merging the subsection into the larger section. The information flows together quite seamlessly.

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think wikilinking is sufficient, especially because only one specific strain of Optimism (Leibnizian) is relevant. I'll comment it out; but I expect at peer review/FAC the material will be re-included. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)



  • "scholars estimate that it was primarily composed in late 1758 and begun as early as 1757" This should be in chronological order unless there's a good reason to do so otherwise.
I'd like to emphasise how early the work was written and walk backward in time, (in order to argue Candide was composed in more than 3 days).
  • "...in addition to many minor ones. In 1761, a version of Candide was published which included, along with many minor tweaks..." The repetition of many minor implies that the ones and the tweaks are the same thing.
I have reworded this passage.
  • "in London by Jean Nourse (translated into English)" Placing the parenthetical comment after the name of the publisher implies that the name has been translated, not the book.
I took out the parenthetical bit: it's both obvious and redundant.
  • "It was translated once into Italian and thrice into English that same year." What year? 1759? There are three sentences between this one and the previous mention of a date, making it unclear to the reader what "that same year" refers to.
I reorganised and re-titled the section.
  • "Voltaire strongly opposed the inclusion of illustrations in his works" Any idea why?
They are, in his eyes, "baubles".
Insufficient.
I expanded this bit with a longer quote. The source I'm citing does not provide any more elaboration.
  • "As noted by Ervin Beck, (professor emeritus of English)," First, it is silly to separate something both by commas and by parentheses. Second, at which university is Beck a professor?
I removed the commas. I don't think it matters.
Joanne Woodward is the artistic director emeritus. Somewhere. It doesn't matter.</sarcasm>
I don't understand your point. This article is about Candide, not Ervin Beck. I'm only asserting that Beck is an expert. The institution's name is almost irrelevant; and certainly not important.
Is he a professor at a university in Europe, or one in North America? Is the university primarily English-speaking, or does employ another language? Is it a public or private? The answers to all of these questions provide insight into Beck's unique perspective. The easiest way to do this is to simply provide the name of the university in the article.
I really don't think that any of those factoids are significant. Beck's perspective is not significantly altered by the linguistic diversity of his home institution. This is especially true if he was a prof. at more than one institution. Shall I include in the article where he was living when he made these statements? Shall I include his linguistic ability? If the question is one of identification, that's one matter. But this article is on Candide, and it worsens the more irrelevant information is added. If you're curious, a page on Beck may be found here.
  • The intro paragraph of the Synopsis section explains that the book may be divided two ways: into thirds by setting, or into halves by conflict resolution. Why does the section go on to use the thirds method after explaining the halves method? This paragraph should either be reordered for a more logical flow, or some sort of reasoning should be given as to why one method is superior to the other.
I did both.
That's a "massive" violation of policy? *Phew* -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)



  • "makes his way to Holland where he is given aid by Jacques" What sort of aid? Financial? Spiritual?
He is given (relatively) lots of general aid, medical, financial, etc. I don't know how to work this in. The important this is that he gives aid.
  • "Pangloss is cured of his illness by Jacques, losing only one eye and one ear in the process" Only an eye and an ear?
It's a joke. Laugh. Or shall I take out "only" (because this is an encyclopedia)?
Some of the readers will think it's a joke. Some will think the "only" implies that the process is generally much more dangerous, which simply leaves the reader confused.
I took out "only".
  • "then the three sail to Lisbon on business" What would "business" consist of for a beggar, a deserter, and an Anabaptist?
I don't want to explain, so I took out "on business".
  • "...and a brutish sailor who just killed Jacques" Very unclear to me why this happened.
I took out "who just killed Jacques" because he doesn't actually kill him... directly... It's incidental, anyway.
  • "...and attacked her, Cunégonde was rescued by a captain who killed her rapist..." Was attacked, or was she raped?
She was raped and stabbed. I took out the ambiguous "who killed her rapist".
  • "Candide is fined heavily by a Dutch magistrate." for what?
I explained it.
  • Which version of Candide does the Synopsis section follow?
The one with the additions. I will say this.
  • "Paquette and Brother Giroflée, too, are reconciled with Candide on his farm, the only property left." The only property left on Earth?
That should be "their only"...
  • "the novella is bildungsroman, that is, a parody of one" Is the novella a parody of bildungsroman? Or is bildungsroma a parody of a novella?
A bildungsroman is not normally a parody: Candide is both a bildungsroman and a parody of a bildungsroman. Isn't this obvious from the wording? What exactly confuses you? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The wording made me think of those exact questions which I posed to you. If it's unclear to me, it very likely will be unclear to someone else.
The comma after "is" makes the meaning unambiguous, I'm quite sure. Can you think of a better way of phrasing the sentence?
How about ""the novella is both an example of bildungsroman and a parody of the genre." ?
That's redundant, because any parody is itself a member of the parodied genre. E.g. caracatures, parodies of drawings, are themselves drawings!



  • "in which characters ... defy traditional reason" I don't know what this means. Is "reason" supposed to be "reasoning"? Or "treason"? Or "reasons for their behavior"?
I reworded.
Fixed.
  • Why is the episode in Portsmouth not included in the synopsis? Readers who are unfamiliar with the plot may have trouble understanding the Satire section.
Because User:Awadewit criticised its length. Also, this episode is irrelevant to the larger plot. The synopsis does mention (very briefly) that Candide goes to England. This is enough, I think.
  • William F. Bottiglia is introduced in Picaresque, but it is not explained who he is until Optimism.
Fixed.
  • "Flaws in European culture are highlighted in the style with which Candide parodies adventure and romance in partial mimicry of the preceding centuries' picaresque novel." My brother and I are both having trouble deciphering this snake.
Wow, that was an awful sentence! I rewrote it. It might need to be further smoothed, though. Check it now...
  • "the characters of Candide are unrealistic, two-dimensional, mechanized" Mechanized? Perhaps you meant "robotic" or "mechanical"?
I meant "mechanical".
  • "Gardens are thought by many critics to play a critical symbolic role in Candide." Which critics?
Almost all of them. <sarcasm>Shall I formulate a list?</sarcasm>
Why not just provide one notable critic? That's how you've handled many other statements in the article.
First of all, sufficient references are cited to satisfy the curious reader. Second of all, such singling out of one critic would not be reasonable because almost everyone agrees there is symbolism here, while almost everyone disagrees on what the symbolism means. Naming one (or a few) critic(s) would be silly and seem (I believe) amateurish. See Mary Wollstonecraft and do an inline search for "many".
  • "Other intermediary gardens may be seen in the Jesuit pavilion, ..." Not sure that "seen" is the right verb choice here.
I reworded it.
  • "but it has also been proposed that the gardens refer" Proposed by whom?
At least Bottiglia. I added this between parentheses.
  • "One of the many interpretations of Candide is that the novella's resolution that gardening is essential refers to the necessary occupation of Candide and his companions with feeding themselves." Does this sentence mean "Gardens provide food" ? Why does such a simple conclusion require such a drawn-out and hard-to-follow explanation? And why is it worth mentioning as an "interpretation" at all? Or am I misunderstanding the whole thing?
It's more complicated than you say, but not so complicated as to deserve such a sentence. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)



  • After a full name has been written out, isn't it acceptable thereafter to only provide the surname? I can't find it in the MOS, though.
I think so... so? Do I overuse a full name?
Yes, you spell out William Bottiglia's full name quite often. I'll take care of it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk
Thanks. 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Ridicule of Pangloss's theories thus ridicules Leibniz himself" Does a character in the book ridicule Pangloss? Or do the critics/readers ridicule his theories?
The book as a whole ridicules Pangloss. This general ridicule in turn ridicules Leibniz.
  • "Candide ... often tries to do justify thus" Huh?
This was a typographical error.
  • "This work, while similar to Candide in subject and written just before it, is very different from the latter in style, as the former..." What is the latter and what is the former? "This work" refers to Poème, leaving only Candide to be compared to.
Reworded.
  • "...has been written about voluminously, perhaps above all others" Perhaps? LOL JK BBQ
I like it! There's no way anyone has counted the words.
  • "...– probably intentionally so." Any sentence with a word like "probably" in it should be immediately followed by a citation, especially since this one is at the end of the paragraph.
I never liked that claim, so I took it out. It's unsubstantiated throughout all the works I've read.
  • "Roy Wolper, professor emeritus of English," Another mysterious professor! Now it's even more important to state where they are professors, as their different backgrounds may contribute to their different views on the subject.
Not really. If someone wants to know the background of a cited analyst, he should have to look it up; naming the institution does not help in that endeavour.
  • "argues in a revolutionary 1969 paper ... His article" Which is it, a paper or an article?
Same thing.
  • "...many similarities between Candide's point of view and that of Voltaire to accept the "inside" view. They believe that Candide's final resolve..." Does the first "Candide" refer to the book or to the character? Despite being italicized, readers may be confused by the phrase "point of view" and by the unitalicized "Candide" nearby.
I have been careful with my italicisation, but I take your point (and have specified with parentheses).
  • "Nevertheless, soon after its publication, its irreverent prose was being quoted: "Let us eat a Jesuit"." What an illogical sequence of statements. It appears that you quoted a line from the book completely out of context, and then used the arbitrary quote as justification for the first statement.
I don't understand your misunderstanding. Shall I remove the quote (because it has no context)?
Perhaps the meaning you were trying to get across was "'Let us eat a Jesuit' became a popular phrase to describe blah blah blah. How it actually reads now is "'Let us eat a Jesuit.' See? I quoted it, so the previous statement is justified."
Ah. "Let us" is not supposed to be proof that it was being quoted. Rather, "Let us" was the quote which people were repeating! Would replacing the colon with a comma make this less ambiguous? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No! Who is quoting that phrase? Why are they quoting it? Without the answers to these questions, the inclusion of the quote is meaningless! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the context is not important: it's just an absurd hortation.
I'm not talking about the context within the story. I'm asking for the context within real life. The article states that people quote from the book. Fine. However, you cannot back this statement up by simply choosing one of your favorite lines and inserting it into the article. You must include a phrase that other people have quoted and provide a reason for them to have done so. If, shortly after the book's publication, began quoting the phrase "Let us eat a Jesuit" because it is illogical and absurd, as you so claim, then simply state that! I am pleading to you to understand that whatever reasoning you had when inserting that quotation is not being communicated to the reader. It is completely illogical to simply thrust a mysterious and seemingly arbitrary quote in there.
  • Wrong way: ... its irreverent prose was being quoted: "Let us eat a Jesuit."
  • Right way: ... its irreverent prose was being quoted: "Let us eat a Jesuit," was a popular phrase amongst scholars due to its blah blah whatever
To simply list the quote as an example of irreverent prose borders on original research. It is not for an editor to decide which phrases are irreverent, quoteworthy, or humorous. If my arguments are not clear at this point, I ask you this: Why did you include that particular quote? Perhaps by exploring your rationale, we can unravel the mystery and the misunderstanding. In the meantime, I will soon begin my second run-through of the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I did this. Really, the only reason I believe it was quoted because it's absurd (and therefore funny). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "...making it a best-seller." What exactly do you mean by "best-seller"? Was the book on a modern best-seller list? Was it actually the highest-grossing book of that 1759?
[1]
  • "As the only work of Voltaire which has stood the test of time," Not a very encyclopedic phrase, and it's unclear exactly what you mean. Did all of Voltaire's other works get eaten by termites? Or are they not as popular as Candide?
I reworded this. Good catch.



  • "a now largely unknown writer of third-rate moralising novels" Who said this?
The big issue is the POV. I removed the quotation.
  • "including James Agee, then Dorothy Parker, John Latouche..." I don't understand why Dorothy Parker is preceded by a "then". It implies that the list is meant to be chronological, but the rest of the list is devoid of any time-related words.
I took out the "then".
  • The Bernstein's operetta section focus on the original 1956 version, gives one sentence about the 1973 "Chelsea version", and ignores the 1982 "Opera house version", the 1988 "final revised version", and the the 1998 "RNT version". I can understand why you would want to focus on the original, but the other (more successful) versions deserve some mention, don't they?
I don't think so. The important material here are the few most major developments of the work (esp. the libretto, which relates most closely to Candide).
  • "...Candido is a work by Leonardo Sciascia..." What kind of work is it? The fact that it is a book isn't mentioned until the end of the paragraph, and even then it doesn't give any hint as to what genre it is.
I replaced "work" with "book". I don't know what "genre" it is (nor do I think this is easily available information).
  • "Candido was published in 1977 in Torino." This is a shoddy way to end the paragraph, as this information should be given earlier to establish context for the reader.
Fixed.
  • "There is also Fanfluche (1892) by Quatrelles." Yes. There is.
Reworded. Enough?
  • "...is often considered a reappropriation of Candide." Often considered by whom?
I did not add this. I commented it out until more information is found.
  • "The plotline of the 1958 novel Candy is based on Candide." Not only is this a one-sentence, paragraph, it's a lousy one. It doesn't give Candy's author, how the plotline was adapted into a new setting, or a reference.
I commented this out too, for now.
  • I suggest the entire Adaptations section be reorganized. As it stands, the first two subsections each discuss a specific adaptation in depth, while the third can only be described as a bowl of factoid oatmeal. A much more logical approach would be to divide the section by medium: A subsection for books, a subsection for operettas, and a subsection for movies. This would make the entire section more coherent while still allowing you to focus on the more important adaptations within each medium.
Will do. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Instead of restructuring this section, I simply removed the silly "factoids" which mentioned works that were at all influence by Candide. Let us name only works which were substantially based on Candide, otherwise there is not much to say. In any case, your recommended structure would not help, because most of the derivatives have been books. Only one (weak) link can be made to a movie. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole article! Given how strongly you feel about taking this to GA and beyond, I'll give you a chance to address my concerns, and then I'll run through the whole thing again. So long as I'm putting the time into this, we might as well make sure we don't miss anything before the next GAN. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Part 2

  • "Through the allegory of Candide, its ridicules religion and theologians, governments and armies, philosophies and philosophers; most visibly, Voltaire rails against Leibniz and his Optimism."
  • Typo after the first comma?
Yes.
  • Visibly doesn't really work here, just like the phrase it can be seen. It's a book.
How about "conspicuously"?
  • "and adapted for the stage (the most notable adaptation is Leonard Bernstein's 1956 comic operetta)." According to WP:MOS, the practice of having entire sentences within parentheses within another full sentence is discouraged. It is especially silly since, in this case, the sentence begins with "the most notable".
I shorted this clause. Perhaps I should use "e.g."?
  • "because of the contained religious blasphemy, political treason and academic hostility" This is the only occurrence of "treason" within the entire article. What does it refer to here?
I was referring to "its obviously illicit and irreverent content". I replaced "treason" with "sedition". Does this work better? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's just the lead; I have to run. More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


  • "travels to several "remote nations" and is hardened by the many misfortunes which befall him"
    • Why is "remote nations" in quotation marks?
Because the phrase of "remote nations" is not meant to be taken literally.
    • In what way was Gulliver hardened? It's somewhat of a vague way to describe him.
The connexion is likewise vague.
  • "Voltaire likely drew upon Gulliver's Travels in writing Candide" It seems there's a missing word or phrase here. Did you mean to say "he drew upon Gulliver's Travels for inspiration"?
Fixed.
  • "A number of other textual sources for Candide" sources of what? Inspiration or information?
Both.
  • "...Relation historique du Tremblement de Terre survenu à Lisbonne by Ange Goudar.[12][9]" If you feel this particular statement is worth backing up with 2 citations, there's no point using the same book for both of them, especially since they're only 5 pages apart.
Fixed.
  • Swift's protagonist is hardened by misfortune. Monbron's protagonist is disillusioned by them. Are these similar enough to have both happened to Candide?
Absolutely.
  • "The 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, tsunami and resulting fires of All Saints' Day" It's very unclear what the fires are a result of. The Earthquake? The tsunami? All Saints' Day? Looting? Pokemon?
The fires came from the earthquake. Shall I move "resulting" to before "tsunami"?
  • "Philosophers could not reconcile these disasters with Optimism, a philosophical system..." This is written as though Optimism was the only philosophical system in place at the time.
Fixed.
  • "In both Candide and Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne ("Poem on the Lisbon Disaster")" Linking the English title implies that it is the actual title of the work, or at least of the article. Neither are true. The English name redirects to the French name.
Fixed.
  • "...Voltaire attacks this Optimism" Perhaps you meant "Voltaire attacks this form of Optimism" or simply "Voltaire attacks Optimism" ?
Reworded.
  • "He uses the Lisbon Earthquake in Candide and his Poème to argue this point" This word order implies that the Lisbon Earthquake in question is unique to these two works. How about "He uses the Lisbon Earthquake to argue this point in Candide and his Poème" ?
Reworded.
  • "in the best of possible worlds" Possible misquote. In both other instances of this phrase in the article, it is written "the best of all possible worlds."
Not a misquote, just a different translation.

Let's take a look at the references before I forget. Some of these might not be errors, as I have never worked with Harvard citations before. They are merely inconsistencies which you may want to examine.

  • You've cited two books by Wade published in 1959. These should be dated as (1959a) and (1959b) rather than the current (1959) and (1959b), per Wikipedia:Author-date referencing
Fixed.
  • Notes 4, 23, 28, 46, 61, 70, 75, and 95 do not include chapters/page numbers.
I included them whenever possible.
  • Note 23 is incomplete.
Fixed.
  • The Roman numerals in note 87 are capitalized.
They probably were in the book.
  • Notes 10 and 13 are duplicates.
Fixed.
  • Note 11 cites consecutive pages using a comma.
I changed it to an ndash.
  • Notes 53 and 54 are duplicates.
Fixed.
  • Notes 86 and 88 are duplicates.
Fixed.
  • Mason notes mix chapter references and page number references.
I forget why. It is likely that sometimes page numbers are not available. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)



Back to the main text, starting at Writing.

  • "This idea is probably based on a misreading of the work La Vie intime de Voltaire aux Délices et à Ferney by Perey and Maugras."
    • What did the book actually say that would lead people to believe the popular myth?
Hmmm. The reference I used does not say, and the work in question was written in 1885... According to the Le Catalogue collectif de France, there should be one copy in Paris. I'll check it out. I went to this library, and it's a big "to do" to get access to this book (and it'll take at least 5 days). How much do you care? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't care at all. It's up to you to care. I just point at things :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to know how big of a deal you think it is: how curious do you think the average reader will be on this matter? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed this.
  • "Candide is mature and well-developed, not impromptu, as the choppy plot and the aforementioned myth suggest" Is this sentence necessary? It reads as though you're saying "There's no way Candide took three days to write because I like it." You've already presented both sides, so there's no reason for this defensive statement.
There is no other side, first of all. Second, I think this matter is worth emphasizing.
  • "...was the one included in Cramer's" Any idea what Cramer's first name was? None of the three instances of "Cramer" include a first name.
I gave "Cramer" an article of "his" own and linked to it.
  • "Candide, or Optimism. Translated from the German of Dr. Ralph. With the additions found in the Doctor's pocket when he died at Minden, in the Year of Grace 1759" According to the MOS linking guide, it is improper to wikilink a word within a quote. While this isn't a quote, I consider the same policy to apply here.
Fixed.
  • "It has been known with reasonable certainty" Yuck. Weasel vomit.
Reworded.
  • "In addition, Candide was translated once into Italian and thrice into English that same year." While this is an interesting fact, it's not clear how this statement relates to the previous discussion of the publication controversy.
Reworded.
  • "I believe that these [illustrations]] will prove quite useless." Is "illustrations" edited in, or is it an attempted wikilink?
Fixed.
  • "Twentieth-century modern artist Paul Klee, notably, ..." If it isn't notable, why is it here?
Fixed.



  • "Some readers divide the book into two parts separated by the hiatus in El Dorado:" What do you mean by "hiatus in El Dorado"? It sounds more like there's a gap in the book than a pause in the action. Consider including which chapter(s) focus on El Dorado.
Reworded.
  • "Indeed, after wandering aimlessly, Candide discovers that his love is alive" This statement should include the event's chronological relation to the El Dorado section.
I removed this sentence, because the time-line is way off.
  • "XI–XX are in America" Definitely requires rephrasing. It wasn't until I hovered over the link that I realized this does not refer to the US.
Fixed.
  • "This is the scheme used below because it is easier to reference (having more divisions)." I try to avoid using signpost sentences such as this, as it draws the reader out of the article. Try to incorporate this into the previous sentences rather than having it jut out.
I have no idea how to do this properly, that is, without asserting a POV. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Candide believes him, for he thinks he is very lucky." Who is very lucky, Candide or Pangloss?
Reworded.
  • "who restores Candide's Optimism."
    • Should be "restores Candide's faith in Optimism." or something to that effect.
Reworded.
    • Nowhere in the synopsis up to this point does it mention Candide having lost faith in Optimism.
Fixed.
  • "(Fr. matelot furieux}})" Broken formatting.
Lol. I don't know whence those brackets came!
  • "Almost as soon as these three set foot in Lisbon," It's awkward to have 4 connecting words at the beginning of a sentence. How about "Shortly after these three..."?
Done.
  • "Candide is flogged and sees Pangloss hanged, but another earthquake follows." Does the earthquake save Candide from being executed? Or did he escape of his own accord and the earthquake happened shortly thereafter?
Candide was only meant to be punished. This was made unambiguous.
  • ""old woman"[42]}}" Broken formatting.
Weird brackets removed.
  • "Cunégonde was rescued by a captain and, in turn, sold her to a Don Issachar" Should be "...a captain who, in turn, sold her..."
Fixed.
  • I'm a tad confused. Is Issachar a title, or a surname? "Don Issachar" makes me think it's a surname, but "the Issachar" make me think it's a title.
Fixed.
  • "Just then, a ship arrives looking to burn Candide at the stake for killing the Grand Inquisitor." Does the ship want to burn Candide, or do the people on the ship want to?
Reworded.
  • "(from the Spanish word "caca")" Caca is a disambiguation page. Did you mean Cacāre?
I made "caca" a link to "cacāre" which mentions the Spanish word also.



  • "his practical manservant, heretofore unmentioned, named Cacambo" Where did Cacambo come from if he was not mentioned up to this point?
This is unexplained in the book.
  • "with whom Voltaire corresponded." Corresponded just once? Or regularly?
The English is unambiguous I believe. I don't want to say "regularly" because that word connotes "often".
  • "he intends to marry Cunégonde, the brother is enraged" Does the brother not have a name?
Not in the book. I mentioned this.
  • "Martin represents a chief opponent of Leibniz, the pessimist Pierre Bayle." Is Martin a representative of Pierre Bayle in the story? Or is his character based off of real-life Pierre Bayle?
Pierre Bayle was real.
  • "After a stay in Paris, Candide and Martin flee for England and then Venice." Why are they fleeing?
Long story.
  • "This man is surrounded by beautiful girls." This man is a child molester? Surely you mean "beautiful women" ?
The French is "filles": in this context, both in French and English, "girls" can mean "women". I prefer to translate more literally.
  • "Later, while Candide and Martin are eating supper, Cacambo returns..." How does Cacambo return to Venice without having ever been there yet?
He returns to Candide.
  • "Candide, Martin and Cacambo are reunited" Again, Cacambo has never met Martin, so how is that they are reuniting ?
Changed to "united".
  • "Candide again finds Pangloss and Lady Cunégonde's brother the baron rowing the galley"
    • This is the first time the brother is referred as a baron.
This was probably a typo.
    • Aren't both of these characters dead?
You'd think so!
  • "According to the philosopher," This is the first time Pangloss is referred to as a philosopher.
He's already been named a professor of a philosophical pseudo-topic.
  • "they rejoin Cunégonde and the old woman," I have no idea which old woman this refers to.
There's only one "old woman".
  • "are reconciled with Candide on his farm" Where is the farm? When did Candide acquire it?
Fixed.
  • "a Turk whose philosophy is to devote his life only to simple work and not concern oneself to external affairs." Mixed references. Choose "his life / himself" or "one's life / oneself", not both.
Good catch.

I'm trying to kick this into high gear and wrap it up quickly, as Helium is undergoing FAR. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You got it!
  • "As Voltaire himself described it, the purpose of Candide was to "bring amusement to a small number of men of wit"." Are you quoting Voltaire, or are you quoting Aldridge? If it's Voltaire, I would be hesitant to trust a book written 200 years after Voltaire died for direct quotes. If it's Aldridge you're quoting, the sentence needs to be reworded to make this clearer.
Voltaire made the statement, but I have to cite the source I used to find this out. This is standard practice.
  • "the novella is bildungsroman, that is, a parody of a one." Typo at the end?
Another good catch.
  • "The dry, pithy explanation thus satirises a serious historical event in characteristic fashion." Which dry pithy explanation? Also, characteristic of whom?
Explained.
  • "Much of the work is a treatment of evil. Rarely does Voltaire diverge from this technique," Is a treatment of evil a technique?
Eh. I reworded this statement.
  • "Cunégonde is the object of Candide's sexual interest" This is not archetypal; the others in the list are.
Fixed.
  • "Of course, Candide is not a rogue" Not a very good way to start off the sentence.
Fixed.
  • "Another possibility is that Candide's resolution refers merely to the necessary occupation of Candide with feeding himself." While I'm glad you shortened this bizarre sentence, I'm still not clear what meaning you're trying to get across? Does this statement mean "It's possible that there is no symbolism behind the garden; it is merely a way for Candide to feed himself" ?
You almost got it. I reworded it again. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Now it makes sense. Sheesh.
  • "War, thievery, and murder – evils of human design – are explored as extensively in Candide as environmental ills." Consider inserting an "also" somewhere to make the connection to the previous statements clearer.
Done.
  • "Ridicule of Pangloss's theories thus ridicules Leibniz himself, and Pangloss's reasoning is silly at best." Needs a better connector than "and". How about "as" or "for" ?
Only "and" works: there is supposed to exist a confluence of causes to ridicule Leibniz.
  • "Candide is painfully cured of his Optimism." As charming a metaphor as this may be, Wikipedia is not an English paper. Optimism is not a disease, nor is it "his".
I added, "as Voltaire would see it". And it is his Optimism. That works in English.
  • "Some critics conjecture that Voltaire actually meant to spare Pope this ridicule" The "actually" is childish; the sentence works fine without it.
Got it.
  • "but as a prescribed practical outlook (though what it prescribes is in dispute)." Avoid using bold/italics for emphasis, and I try to avoid unnecessary use of parentheses. How about "but as a somewhat vague practical outlook" or some such?
That suggestion doesn't work at all. I'll leave it for now.
  • "and that he represents the ideal philosophy of Candide" Unclear. Did you mean "...the ideal philosophy in Candide"? Or "...the ideal philosophy for Candide" ?
Reworded.
  • "the conclusion of the work in which Martin becomes passive." Huh?
Reworded.
  • "Another of the primary Candide debates concerns..." Confusing juxtaposition of words that end in "s". How about "Another Candide debate concerns..." ?
Used your suggestion (with "primary"). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "For instance, some for the opposing "outside" view believe that the isolationist philosophy of the Old Turk closely mirrors that of Voltaire."
    • This paragraph never explicitly states that the Crocker/Stavan/Mylne POV is known as the "outside" view, so using it here may be confusing.
Fixed.
    • It doesn't make sense to use "for instance" at the beginning of this sentence because the previous statement was about the protagonist.
Fixed.
  • "Others see a strong parallel between Candide's gardening activities at the conclusion and the habits of the author." Which habits? Nail-biting?
Fixed.
  • "Martine Darmon Meyer argues that insiders" Again, insiders was never defined. Either reword to avoid using "insiders" or find a place to define it.
This was defined explicitly: "This point of view, the "inside", specifically rejects attempts to find Voltaire's "voice" in the many characters of Candide and his other works."
Yes, you've clearly defined the "inside" view. What I'm trying to point out is that if you never state what an "insider" is, readers might mistake it for someone who has inside information (such as someone close to Voltaire).
Fixed.
  • "by both secular and religious authorities, because the book openly derides church and government alike." The two bodies should appear in the same order both times: "secular and religious...government and church" or vice versa.
Fixed. Nice catch.
  • "Let us eat a Jesuit" MOS Linking guide states not to link words in the body of a quote.
Fixed.
  • "By the end of February 1759, The Great Council of Geneva and the administrators of Paris had banned it." What is "it"? The use of the Jesuit phrase? Or the humorous passage? Or the book?
Fixed.
  • "As the only work of Voltaire which remained popular up to the present day, Candide is listed in The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages" Mixing past and present tense. Consider replacing "remained" with "remains". Also, "up to the present day" is a dangerous phrase. How about "in the modern day" or "in the 21st century" or some such?
Noted.
  • "It is included in the Encyclopædia Britannica collection Great Books of the Western World.[1]" Was the external link meant to be a ref?
It is now.
  • "Candide also inspired artists and musicians over the centuries." What is the purpose of this statement?
I was making sure they didn't feel left out. Really. In a discussion of "legacy", I have to make sure the correct weight is given to every sort of influence. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)



  • "In 1760, one year after Voltaire published Candide, a sequel to his novella was published ..." Consider replacing "his novella" with "the novella" or removing it entirely. "his novella" may cause temporary befuddlement.
Fixed.
  • "This work is attributed both to Thorel de Campigneulles, a writer unknown today" Odd word order. How about "...both to writers Thorel de Campigneulles, unknown today, and whatthefuckever" ?
I think it's better unchanged.
  • "Leonard Bernstein, an American composer and conductor, wrote the music to an operetta based on Voltaire's Candide" Not really sure why the first sentence is about Bernstein and not the operetta.
Fixed.
  • "Candide, the operetta, first opened on Broadway as a musical" Having both "the operetta" and "as a musical" here is redundant. I suggest dropping the former.
Fixed.
  • The paragraph on Candido is lousy. Firstly, it discusses the hot debate without ever establishing the notability of the book in its own right. Second, can a theory "say" or "claim" anything? Maybe, maybe not, but a person definitely can.
Fixed.
  • "about a minor passage in Candide where" Merh. How about "about a minor passage from Candide in which" ?
Fixed.
  • "protagonist meets in passing Ahmed III, the deposed Turkish sultan. This chance meeting" Having both "in passing" and "chance" is redundant. I suggest dropping the former, especially since fits so awkwardly into that sentence.
Fixed.
  • "For a list of these, see Voltaire: Candide ou L'Optimisme et autres contes (1989) with preface and commentaries by Pierre Malandain" Advertisement? The inclusion of the citation is good enough, there's no need for this.
How else should people know to check? I'm not merely referencing. Also, I established a precedent for this in Roman Vishniac.

Well now. That's that, I suppose. May any future processes on this article be swift and fair. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I've nominated the article for GA status. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jacobshuf

I expanded a bit on the synopsis. I have a vested interest in the plot, so it might be pushing the edge of lengthly, but the tidbits in the plot about Candide's experiences with the oreillons and the month soujorn through the jungle aren't vital.

I shorted this recent addition of yours on their capture by the Oreillons. Still, I don't know if this story should be included at all. I'm leaving it in for now, with a comment that the value of its inclusion is contentious. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was more interested in trying to restore some of voltaire's satire. I added the bit about Jacques' drowning and candide's reaction, with Pangloss's consolation. I feel like it contributes succinctly to the style of satire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobshuf (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise; creating a summary of the right length and detail is hard, and according to previous reviewers of this page, the summary was already "pushing the edge of lengthy". There is also the question of balance: if we include the story of the sailor, must we include the (I think halarious) story of the sharing of Cunégonde by the Jew and the Christian? This passage you added used to be included in the summary but it was taken out while trimming the section (see above); I feel that the material reintroduced should not be included because it comprises only unnecessary detail. However enjoyable the story, it is not crucial to the plot. That is the standard of inclusion for now, based on the above comments by Awadewit, whose opinion I value highly (see her work on eighteenth-century British literature). In any case, I did not delete the material... I only commented it out, in case we want to include it later (after GAC, PR, whatever). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The sailor was refered to brutish because though he was saved from drowning by Candide's benefactor Jacques, upon Jacques' drowning the sailor neithor took notice nor attempted to save him. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobshuf (talk • contribs)

I reverted also your change from "brutish sailor" to "brutish" sailor, because the French included translates into the former. I don't think we should shorten the French quotation, because simply quoting "brutish" sounds silly; also, it sets a dangerous precedent: we would then have to call the "old woman" an "old" woman; in addition, the ambiguity is important, I think, to Voltaire's style. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a great article, and I approach it with humility. I assume the GA nomination is just a stopgap on the way to FAC, and I'll try not to hold it up too long. There are really just a few, minor things I'd like to comment on:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • There is good coverage of the historical background for the book, but I'd like to see a little more about Voltaire himself: just a couple of sentences about his age and at which point of his career this was written.
  • Will do.
  • I wrote a short paragraph with which to begin the section "Voltaire and the Lisbon Earthquake". I hope it satisfies... if not, I'll rework it. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I moved it, with a minor rewrite, to the "Writing" paragraph - I thought it fit better there. If you disagree, feel free to move it back. Lampman (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There's lots of hidden text in the article, I assume this is because it's undergoing peer review, and there's still debate over how much should be included. In one case though - when it comes to admiral Byng - the exclusion of information in one place prevents understanding of a later passage.
  • There is a lot of hidden text, but only partly because of the copyediting; I just tend to add a lot of informative comments for myself and other editors. I feel such notation can be very useful, while it costs us practically nothing. I also do not like to delete writing which may be re-included in the future.
  • Does the omission of the Byng story from the synopsis "prevent" the understanding of ==Satire==? The whole story is explained in this section itself. Adding explanation to the synopsis would be redundant (if the info. was kept in ==Satire==, as I believe it should).
  • My problem is with the sentence "This depiction of military punishment trivialises Byng's death." Even though there is some background on the episode, this is the first time the name "Byng" is mentioned, but it's used as if the reader is already familiar with him. It should either say something like: "This depiction of military punishment trivialises the historical execution of admiral John Byng in 1757" or leave out the name altogether: "This depiction of military punishment trivialises the admiral's death."
  • I agree. I have included Byng's full name two sentences before this problem sentences, so that readers are familiar with the last name when upon it they come. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a requirement for a GA pass, but as a suggestion for further improvement: many of the events in the book appear as absurd non-sequiturs, and leave the reader of the article somewhat confused. It would be helpful to include scholarly interpretations of some of the stranger events, such as the red sheep or the monkey lovers (which, it seems, is discussed by Bellhouse). Otherwise the plot synopsis becomes filled with disjointed, meaningless episodes.
  • As has been discussed above, part of this is that the book itself is filled with "absurd non-sequiturs". The more information explanation there is, the longer the synopsis will be, and the last GA reviewers strongly encouraged I cut down the synopsis. By their standards, it's already too long. The next step is cutting out large chunks of the plot, chunks which deserve to be included more, IMHO, than the Byng story, for instance.
  • Then I would agree with that - there are parts of the plot that are not self-explanatory from the context of the story, and those should either be discussed or omitted. Maybe they are just "absurd non-sequiturs"; I'm not asking for definitive answers, but surely they must have been the subject of scholarly debate. Anyway, this was just a thought from my side. Lampman Talk to me! 13:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I replaced a few dashes with ndashes.
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good work so far, and good luck! Lampman Talk to me! 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I'll get right on addressing your suggestions. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all of your suggestions. Of course, you may make more if you like (or find my responses inadequate). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope, as far as I'm concerned it's a GA now. I'd recommend you put it up for FAC as soon as the peer reviews are done. Congrats! Lampman (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions and thank you for the congratulations. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I believe today's FA, To Kill a Mockingbird, shows the importance of a short author biography in an article about the work. But the one we have here now is probably enough, for more they're just gonna have to hit the link. Lampman (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"of" or "by"

Disclaimer: I am an American and do not speak French as a native language.

I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning of the French "de" in this context: Ralph wrote the German; and Voltaire (initially anonymous) translated it. The subtitle would not make sense if it said "Ralph translated this from German", because it would beg the needless question "Whose German?".

I guess that using the word "of" to translate "de" seems over-simplistic and pathetically literal. It is a bit! But it does work to express that Ralph wrote the German in perfect, if a tad archaic, English.

In most cases, "by", in such a context, would translate "de" more closely... not in this case! Here, using the word "by" introduces a terrible ambiguity: one doesn't know if Dr. Ralph did the translating or if he wrote the original. I believe, based on a discussion with a French teacher (and native speaker), that if Voltaire had wanted to say that Dr. Ralph did the translating (as "by" implies) that he would have written "par Dr. Ralph". In any case, using the English word "by" is unacceptably ambiguous. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisbon earthquake images

There are many Lisbon earthquake images here (just search for "1755 Lisbon earthquake"). You might see if any of the others suit your fancy better. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the database, so I can't (I think) get high-res versions of them. -- Rmrfstar (talk)

Copy edit

Hey there, I have done a quick copy edit of the article up until the "style" section. I have listed the portions that need further work by the author(s) below:

  1. "Candide ... may be grouped together into two main schemes. Some readers divide the book into two parts ... This view is supported by the strong theme ... reminiscent of adventure and picaresque novels."
    (a) First two sentences: "X may be done. Some do Y." Are X and Y the same thing? If they are, make this clear. If they are not, give a citation for the first sentence to clarify that it is a completely different point.
    I think I have clarified this matter.
    (b) Third sentence: I don't see how the fact that the book can be divided into two parts can be supported by the fact that its theme is reminiscent of something else. Are you trying to say that "adventure and picaresque novels" can all be divided into two parts?
    Yes, actually. I believe I have made this clear.
  2. "home to the Baron's daughter, Lady Cunégonde; bastard nephew, Candide; a tutor, Pangloss; a chambermaid, Paquette; and the rest of the Baron's family."
    There's a mistake with the syntax here: are all the items listed possessed by the Baron (as suggested because of the 's), or are they not (as suggested by the indefinite article)?
    Fixed.
  3. Pangloss is clueless and cannot grasp the dervish's point.
    I think clueless is a rather strong word to use for our dear friend. What about him was clueless? Do clarify: do you mean that he had not a clue about the meaning of the question, or that he was dumbfounded?
    I've removed this sentence (and a couple others)... They were not really necessary, and Awadewit wanted me to shorted the summary anyway.
  4. Struck by this statement, Candide concludes that all he knows is that "we must cultivate our garden."
    Think about it - it is impossible for one to conclude that one knows only his conclusion. "A and B, therefore C; A and B do not exist in my mind; C exists in my mind" sounds like a fallacy to me. I suggest removing "that all he knows is".
    I don't understand where the fallacy exists; but I do see bad wording. I also see that the sentence is unnecessary altogether. I have removed it, too.
  5. The author achieves this goal, according to literary analysts, by combining his sharp wit with a fun parody of the classic adventure-romance plot. As the initially naïve protagonist eventually comes to a mature conclusion – however noncommittal – the novella is bildungsroman, if not a very serious one.[1] Candide is confronted with horrible events described in painstaking detail so often that it becomes humorous. Frances K. Barasch, literary analyst, described Voltaire's matter-of-fact narrative as treating topics such as mass death "as coolly as a weather report".[2] The fast-paced and improbable plot – in which characters repeatedly narrowly escape death, for instance – allows for compounding tragedies to befall the same characters over and over again.[3] In the end, Candide is primarily, as described by Voltaire's biographer Ian Davidson, "short, light, rapid and humorous".[4][5]
    Sentence structure leaves the reader confused. In the first portion you say that the story starts witty and comes to a mature conclusion, and in the second portion you explain that the plot makes serious topics humourous. Are you using the second portion to explain the wit at the beginning of the novel? If you are, I suggest not stating the fact that the story comes to a mature conclusion until the end of the paragraph.
    Good call. I have done as you suggested.
  6. As the plot unfolds, readers find that Candide is no rogue, Cunégonde becomes ugly and Pangloss is painted to be a fool: the characters of Candide are unrealistic, two-dimensional, mechanical, and even marionette-like; they are simplistic and stereotypical.
    It sounds like you are trying to say that the fact that Candide is no rogue (et cetera) makes him unrealistic, two-dimensional (et cetera).
    Nice catch... that was subtle! I removed the colon and tweaked the syntax.

Ok that's all for that portion of the article. Feel free to yell at me at my discussion page *grin* -Samuel Tan 05:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the skillful review! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgars and Abares

Out of curiousity, why does Voltaire refer to the Prussians as "Bulgars" and the Austrians (I believe, though it says French in the article) as "Abares"? Is there any historical or cultural reasons for it? 24630 (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Abares are the French. See Thacker, Christopher. “Review: [untitled].” The Modern Language Review 68.3 (1973): 657-659.. For the origin of the term Bulgars, see page 7 of Voltaire, and Shane Weller. Candide: A Dual-Language Book. Dover Publications, 1993. Apparently, Voltaire was saying Frederick the Great was a pederast. I have forgotten the etymology of "Abares", and can't find it again with a cursory Google search. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference aldridge251254 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Barasch (1985), p. 3
  3. ^ Starobinski (1976), p. 194
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference davidson54 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Wade (1959b), p. 133
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Candide/Archive_2&oldid=309522922"