Talk:Roger Caillois

Untitled
I would like to suggest that using the construction "Today, he is remembered for ____" needs to be bolstered by an outside source that may confirm that contemporary scholarship "remembers" him for these particular examples. Anneray (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a change made at the end of the entry- The previous sentence said that Caillois is "considered a major contributor to the field of ludology, to which he devoted his book, Les Jeux et les Hommes." This is a mischaracterization. Caillois' work predates ludology entirely, and as such to suggest he 'contributed' to it is imprecise. For the same reason, to suggest he "devoted" his book to ludology is a gross distortion. Ebenheaven (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cesaire section
I'm not sure this Cesaire section is appropriate here. Cesaire's reading of Caillois is deliberately tendentious, misquoting him frequently as an avatar for a politics that Caillois didn't have and was not arguing in the Illusion a Rebours essay. It is notable that Caillois is mentioned in such an important book, but while he's singled out for special mention, it's for a few pages out of a longer essay. Here is an article discussing Cesaire's polemical use and abuse of Caillois' essay. |A498109046&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=56910103 "Civilization" and the Self-Critical Tradition, by Daniel Gordon I can imagine a fruitful paragraph that has a balance of perspectives on Cesaire's reading, but that would take up even more of this article. Given the implication the section suggests for Caillois' work in general, I think it should be removed. Infocidal (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)