Talk:Cousin Bette

Expansion

Surely this synopsis can be expanded?!

I have expanded the synopsis — and every other part of the article, using more than a dozen critical and biographical texts, to make this something (hopefully) worth of an FA star. Next comes the peer reviews and copyedits! Scartol • Tok 03:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Format reversion

I reverted these changes because they don't improve the format of the article — quite the contrary in fact:

• The extended quotation in the section about Bette Fischer needs to be split in two paragraphs, since one is in English and the other in French. In the changed version, it all ran together, making it hard to read.
• The image changes not only disrupt the regular left-right stagger pattern, but also violate several rules of WP:MOS#Images: Images should not be placed just below second-level (===) headings (the image of Louis-Philippe violates this), and the image subject should generally face the text (the image of Helen Mirren violates this).

So I've changed it back. I also don't care for infoboxes, but I'll let other folks decide if it's necessary here or not. Scartol • Tok 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. I must have been drunk or something when I put those 1920s dates in. Thanks for fixing those! Scartol • Tok 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I would very much like to see the infobox removed from this article. In my opinion, articles about novels look much better with a large image on the right top, instead of a clunky standardized rectangle, giving information that is redundant at best. I've passed three other articles about Balzac novels without infoboxes as FAs, and I don't see the need to add one here. What do other folks think? Scartol • Tok 01:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Following that arguement you are asking for all infoboxes to be removed. The advantage is a common collection of core information keep together and available in a std format and in a style that is normallised. A small amount of redundancy is not a problem. the phrase "look much better" becomes a question of aesthetics and personal opinion. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess for me the burden of proof is on the need for it, and I'm not convinced that it's really useful (apart from making all pages about novels look alike, which I would argue is not by itself an important goal). But let's try to find a happy medium. Are there collapsible infoboxes? (So that the image is always displayed, and the info below can be hidden by default?) Why is it useful to put "NA" for the ISBN? Why not just leave that line out of the 'box? Scartol • Tok 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No not "look alike" but 'gather generally common information together in a clearly understood format' for easy access. The N/A is to indicate that this first edition woul dnot have had an ISBN. Obviously these would not have had one being older titles. Perhaps this information could be hidden but kept to stop the uninformed keep on adding the modern and non-notable edition ISBNs. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Novels are so disparate, though, that they do not have "generally common information". I agree that the infobox is redundant and undesirable. I noticed that this infobox says "Hardback and paperback" - is that even correct? Publication history is complicated and foisting twentieth-century publication categories on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century novels is ridiculous. Yet this is how the infobox is designed - with a late twentieth-century novel in mind. Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a hidden parameter added to the infobox with a note that supports the above assertion. ISBNs didn't even exist until the late twentieth century, and infoboxes try a make you put it in. Personally, I'd like to see the end of all infoboxes, mostly 'cause they're ugly, but that's another issue. I think that infoboxes, like image captions, should include information that the reader won't get from the article. There's nothing in the infobox currently that provides any new information, so I support Scartol's suggestion. Infoboxes are optional at this point, so I believe that it should be up to the main editor's discretion. If Scartol doesn't want one here, then there shouldn't be one. --Christine (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Awadewit point about publication history and accuracy should be strived for. However there is common information that can be gathered - but we should not force information to be provided if it doesn't exist - of course not. That is why few if any of the parameters are mandatory. "the main editor's discretion" there is no such concept in wikipedia. The fact that infoboxes are disliked by a few (albeit mostly productive) editors does not mean that infoboxes should not be used. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are also not mandatory. However, I have noticed that Wikiproject Novels includes a parameter in their talk page tag as if they are. Sometimes infoboxes are useful and sometimes they are not. It is up to the editors working on the article to determine that, just like it is up to the editors to determine the structure of the article, etc. We seem to have a consensus here to remove the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I find infoboxes to be quite useful in certain articles: in articles on biological species, they provide an easy glimpse at the taxonomy; in articles on countries or chemical elements, they provide a consistency necessary to tie together a relatively small number of related pages. Equivalents to infoboxes such as these can be found in many print encyclopedias. I see no point, however, in infoboxes in literature articles, especially articles on older works, which, as mentioned above, fit poorly into modern-day categories. The only legitimate parameters in this case are the title, author, and publication date, all of which can easily be found in the lead (one specificity to Balzac's works is their categorization in the Comédie humaine, but this is already admirably set forth in the template at the bottom). I might also add that most readers inclined towards looking up Balzac novels would hardly object to reading a couple of English sentences to find the information they need. Lesgles (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

cette jeunesse...

The following quotation irked me, I think because the subjonctive eût looks out of place without the corresponding quoique: "Steinbock eût vingt-neuf ans ... cette jeunesse ... cédé sous les fatigues et les misères de l’exil". ("Steinbock was nine-and-twenty ... his youth ... had faded under the fatigue and stress of life in exile". Here is the full text and translation:

Quoique Steinbock eût vingt-neuf ans, il paraissait, comme certains blonds, avoir cinq ou six ans de moins ; et, à voir cette jeunesse, dont la fraîcheur avait cédé sous les fatigues et les misères de l’exil, unie à cette figure sèche et dure, on aurait pensé que la nature s’était trompée en leur donnant leurs sexes.

Though Steinbock was nine-and-twenty, like many fair men, he looked five or six years younger; and seeing his youth, though its freshness had faded under the fatigue and stress of life in exile, by the side of that dry, hard face, it seemed as though Nature had blundered in the distribution of sex.

I have reinstated the quoique and a couple of the surrounding phrases: "Quoique Steinbock eût vingt-neuf ans, il paraissait, comme certains blonds, avoir cinq ou six ans de moins ... cette jeunesse ... avait cédé sous les fatigues et les misères de l’exil" ("Though Steinbock was nine-and-twenty, like many fair men, he looked five or six years younger ... his youth ... had faded under the fatigue and stress of life in exile".) We get the bonus of learning Steinbock's apparent age. It is probably not important that it was the freshness, and not the youth, that was fading. I hope this version is not too long. Lesgles (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure about how to word that, and I think my French was too rusty to catch the presence of the subjunctive. So your new wording is fine. Cheers for that! Scartol • Tok 02:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Balzac's work as a basis for models of inversion

Get that? I could be more obtuse about what that means.

I read through the article, which is most impressive. My only suggestion, take it as you will, is that I came across quite a bit of information about Balzac while constructing the Literature section in the Lesbian article, as Scartol knows because I asked him to read over it. The sources I used, Lillian Faderman, Jeannette Howard Foster, and Terry Castle, consider Balzac a major figure in the development of the concept of what a lesbian is because his works use promiscuity, androgyny, and sexual fluidity repeatedly. Krafft-Ebbing and Havelock Ellis used Balzac's and Baudelaire's fictional treatments of lesbianism as a basis to determine how to identify female "inverts". The medical designation of inverts subsequently caused women who realized they had been categorized to form a subculture, or a neurosis, depending on how they reacted to the news.

This might be too much for one work of Balzac's, but just to let you know that there is quite a bit of info regarding this work and its treatment of lesbianism. I can assist with the section since I have the sources. Let me know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be worth exploring for a forked article, maybe Lesbianism in La Cousine Bette? the McGuire article has lots more info than what I put in here, and obviously there is lots more elsewhere. But given the length of this article already, I don't think it's wise for us to add it in here. Scartol • Tok 18:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Lesbianism in the works of Balzac? Sometimes forks are too specific. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. I can't promise to be able to work on it much soon, but eventually..? Scartol • Tok 12:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add some comment to this conversation. On my way to check something out in the Lesbian article, I noticed that the quote box was nuts. Then I went on a quote box fixing spree, including a thread a WP:AN. I was going to say something here, now I can't remember it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

error in summmary

Good plot summary in general but with one error. It says Hulot and Crevel both hope to marry the widowed Valerie, but Hulot is still married to Adeline. It is Montez who competes with Crevel for Valerie; after all, he ends up poisoning them when he loses out. CharlesTheBold (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Thanks for noticing this. I've changed the wording to remove mention of Hulot wanting to marry Valerie. Scartol • Tok 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

. I made minor amendments to the summary, based on my recent rereading of the book. The book is not faithfully represented in the 2008 Jessica Lange movie (which tried to treat it as a sexy comedy), was much better done in the 1971 BBC miniseries (PBS Masterpiece Theater) with Margaret Tyzack and Thorley Waters - but even that had to streamline the story. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC) After trying to summarize every twist and turn in the complex plot, and turning out a summary that was not entertaining and which spoiled the joy of reading the book, I shortened the plot summation considerably. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Translation history

I'm surprised it made FA without discussion of translation history. It is one of the main reasons people will come to the article, to figure out which translations to read and avoid. Doesn't have to be every one, but the Gutenberg translation should be noted since it so often read, the first translation is notable, and a few of the most recent translations by Oxford and Penguin. Maybe some history about bowdlerized or suppressed translations by Victorians (often the case with French translations). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See also here. 78.32.103.197 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I plow through over 25 books on Balzac (biography and criticism) for each of these articles; every book I've been able to find in English about the man and his work. I've found nothing about this issue, prominent though it might be in some circles. Scartol • Tok 20:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford edition, which bolsters the text with some explanatory end-notes, purports to divide up the text in numbered chapters evidently copies from an early - but not the first - edition. Those divisions, while probably helpful to the modern reader in locating his place in the book, seem not to be reproduced in any other French edition. I have found one or two French editions that also divided up the text into chapters - but not where the Oxford edition divides it, and most French editions including some highly esteemed ones lack the chapter breaks. The Penguin edition lacks the end-notes, any chapter breaks, but might be slightly more readable to modern Americans. The Modern Library edition is without end-notes, chapter breaks, and is somewhat dated in its English. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Page title - English or French?

On 6 November 2009, Roman Spinner moved this page from the French that I had built it around (La Cousine Bette) to the English (Cousin Bette). The reason given was as follows:

moved La Cousine Bette to Cousin Bette over redirect: Other than rare exceptions such as "Les Misérables", titles of works of literature are translated ("Toilers of the Sea" not "Les Travailleurs de la mer")

However, we've discussed this at the Balzac WikiProject, and while there's no definite consensus, all the other Balzac articles are currently in French (unless they've been changed without my realizing it). So I vote to keep this as La Cousine Bette. What do other folks think? Scartol • Tok 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

La Cousine Bette is the title, paralleled with Père Goriot.--Wetman (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bette Davis

There's no connection with Bette Davis— pronounced "Betty", pace Bette Midler— who was always called "Betty" in the family. The illustration should be dropped.--Wetman (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As the footnote shows, a 2006 biography of Ms. Davis indicates that she chose her stage name from Balzac's novel. Perhaps she didn't know how the French was pronounced? Scartol • Tok 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Translations within the text

I have translated all those book titles to English, as a search on the french titles at A Libris and Amazon does not get you the book, and we do want the books read by the people who read about them, yes? I also translated "L'Etrangere", and considered also translating "bourgeoisie" and "ancien regime" for the obvious reason that not everyone knows what they mean. What do others think about this? It's possibly a bit annoying for those who don't know these terms to have to follow links to have them defined for them, and feels a bit exclusionary to have them only in French. Clarity and understanding, I feel, should be easy for the reader to achieve. Thoughts?--TEHodson 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Dramatizations

The article mentions two dramatizations, the BBC miniseries and the movie. It then criticizes the movie and tells us absolutely nothing about the miniseries except that it starred Margaret Tyzack and Helen (later Dame Helen) Mirren. I saw the miniseries and thought it was great, but I'm not a literary critic. Could somebody provide more detail? 76.122.85.110 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC miniseries was quite good and, besides Tyzack as Bette, and Mirren as Valerie, there was Thorley Waters as the Baron. The dramatization had to streamline the plot a bit - no Uncle Johann, no Brazilian for Valerie, the plotline with Crevel almost gone, but otherwise very entertaining. The BBC drama is findable on the internet, split into many parts. The more recent (1998) Jessica Lange movie had the incandescent Kelly McDonald as Hortense and Bob Hoskins perfectly cast as Crevel - but it is not possible to think of Jessica Lange as a homely and unloved old maid. The movie brutally streamlined the story (having Hortense shoot Steinbock and go to prison) and tried to turn it into a sexy comedy, and, as such, was not a success. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Illustrator

Georges Cain was born in 1856, so he couldn't have illustrated the 1846 edition. WQUlrich (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cousin Bette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914195609/http://65.55.14.126/movies/movie-synopsis/la-cousine-bette/ to http://65.55.14.126/movies/movie-synopsis/la-cousine-bette/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)