Talk:Mise en abyme

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

spelling[edit]

The modern French spelling is abîme. My little dictionary does not show abyme, nor the sense of this article (in either spelling), so I'm wondering: is abyme an archaic spelling adopted intentionally? —Tamfang 20:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2016, the standard French spelling is abime. Middle French used abisme when it was borrowed into Middle English as abysm, abime, abyme and abhyme (per OED abysm). These are all considered archaic and rare by OED. Their entry mise en abyme lists variants mise-en-abîme, mise en abyme, mis-en-abîme, reborrowing the entire phrase from Modern French in 1967 (or earlier), where Ricardou uses Gide's suggestion en abyme, taken from the term in heraldry, to construct mis en abyme. Modern French replaced is with î, then further replaced î with i. 216.154.19.89 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wikipedia remarks "on écrit parfois aussi, par abus de langage : mise en abîme", so the author of that, presumably a native French speaker, considers mise en abyme correct. It's from heraldry, which tends to still use terms from rather archaic French. You wouldn't hear gules in modern use outside of heraldry, either; it's a "frozen" vocabulary. - Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's from heraldry that I know the word; I see abîme but not abyme in Rietstap's Armorial. Go figure. (The French spelling gueules, too, happens to be a word in modern use.) —Tamfang 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In English, isn't this a coat in pretence? --Wetman 04:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say whether I've seen that exact phrase, but I have seen escutcheon of pretence which amounts to the same. On another hand, it ought not to be called that when it's the pronominal or dynastic coat, as for example in the royal arms of Denmark and Spain. —Tamfang 05:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hasselhoff reference[edit]

Im not sure the reference to David Hasselhoff is appropriate, Its not really commonly seen (unless you're from something awful's forum) May I suggest finding another exemple, or eliminating it. I get the impression that its not really a mise en abyme but a just recursive image.

70.83.6.154 06:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metafiction[edit]

From the description I think a mention of metafcition[[1]] and a direct link to its wiki would be appropriate for the article. it has similar definition and theme as Mise en abyme.Theo10011 (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coupla remarks[edit]

The images were used rather unconventionally here: there was a logjam at the bottom, and none at the top — strange for an article that deals in large part with a visual effect. It's OK if a particularly illustrative example is pulled to the top, and doesn't appear next to the text that discusses it, particularly since there is no discussion here: Las Meninas is referenced only in passing. If this is later expanded, perhaps a detail of the work could be used in the body, or another image found for the top.

Centering the Hagia Sophia image and specifying the unusually large 500px was an awkward layout move — remember that whatever page you see will vary from user to user, depending on browser, device, zoom function, and other variables. Viewers who want to see greater detail can click on the image.

Another layout issue was the use of directional references to images within the text ("as shown at right" or "pictured below"). These don't work well on Wikipedia, because images may be deleted or moved as a result of ongoing collaboration. In very long articles, an image may indeed drift too far from its discussion, but if the article's sections are kept at a readable length, and the image kept within the relevant section, that's unlikely to be a problem.

The hidden note says this article could yield separate articles on heraldry, literature, visual art. IMHO, that isn't the best idea, as the concept is illuminated for the reader (for me anyway) by seeing all the kinds of examples together in a complementary fashion. I did reorganize some material, which seemed scattered in the wrong places. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree it looks better this way. My only problem was with the Hagia Sophia image which I thought got too small to be useful in a thumbnail. You sortof have to strain your eye to see what the text refers to. Or click it of course :) But wikipedia doesn't seem to have a tag for scaling images with reference to page width, so a thumbnail is the best option. EverGreg (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On the Proposed merge with 'Droste Effect'[edit]

Strongly opposed. 'Droste Effect' refers only to the visual phenomenon of an image repeated within itself. It is therefore a very specific and limited term (whoever edited the lead to suggest that Mise en Abyme is an example of the Droste Effect has got things completely the wrong way round - it should be vice versa). M.en A. is a much broader and conceptually richer phenomenon which covers a range of self-referential visual and literary devices, many of which DO NOT involve a simple visual repetition. StuartLondon (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no support for this merger, I will remove the merge templates.  thayts t  15:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mise en abyme. 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:

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) 05:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian arms[edit]

"Another example is the two-headed eagle in the modern coat of arms of Russia, which holds a sceptre topped by a similar eagle holding a similar sceptre."

I've moved the above sentence here from the section on "Heraldry", as the description of the the Russian coat of arms is nothing like the illustration in Wikipedia's own article on the subject. (The Russian coat of arms does indeed constitute an example of mise en abyme, but nothing like the description here.) --87.115.226.176 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceballs[edit]

Would the part where they watch the VHS of Spaceballs during the film (and talk about it) also be an example of this? --81.131.245.27 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Inside Outtakes (Bo Burnham)[edit]

During the final act of The Inside Outtakes by Bo Burnham, there is a chapter titled "mise en abyme." In this sequence, there is a variety of shots that show the footage being show being projected back into the camera via a monitor, often out of sync with what's happening in reality. This effect is used to highlight the greatening disconnection between the creator (Burnham) and the project that he's making (Inside) during the artistic process. 65.141.89.10 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added your example, replacing the non-example of The Harold, which does not use the phrase or apply it. Do you have a secondary source for your interpretation in the last sentence? 216.154.19.89 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mise_en_abyme&oldid=1199631041"