Talk:Scaramouche (novel)

Why the title character was called Scaramouche
The article says, "His successive endeavors as a lawyer, politician, actor, lover, and buffoon lead his enemies to call him Scaramouche" .. huh? Why? Does it mean something? Mike Schiraldi 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This (former) quotation from the article essentially did not mean anything; it was wrong. As those who have experienced either the book or the film will recall, the title character's connection with the name Scaramouche was owed simply to the fact that he portrayed that stock character during a period he spent incognito as a member of an an acting troup. I have now corrected the reference.


 * BPK 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is more. The Vatican Secret Archives used (prior to their reorganisation in 2005-8) to have a Scaramouche fonds. Any ideas why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.71.69 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Scaramouch
There is also an article called Scaramouch. Is this the same thing? Should they be merged? discospinster 16:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the character in the novel acts the part of the stock character Scaramouch in the French theather. This section of the book is where the title of the novel is drawn from. Korror 1:45, 17 February 2006.


 * I don't understand. The character of the novel seems, if I read correctly, to have been drawn from a more or less indistinguishable stock character of the Italian/French theatre called "Scaramouche, Scaramouch, or Scaramuccia".


 * Surely we don't need three articles for these: I would think we need exactly two, one for the book and one for the comedic character.


 * As well, I don't think the bit about Bohemian Rhapsody should be mentioned in the context of the book. It's not clear to me that Queen was referring to the character of the book especially, but instead to the comedic character. --Saforrest 20:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This setup is definitely wrong. The main article shouldn't be the novel. "Scaramouch" etc should direct to the article on the stock character but give a redirection to the novel.(In fact, the novel could be a subsection of the article about the stock character.) As it is, some of the material on this page (Queen references etc) are really about the character, not the novel. Even if these were removed they would inevitably reappear.--Jack Upland 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The buskin
The synopsis was lacking a 1/3rd of the book! Andre-Louis' spell as an actor. I added it and revised the other two sections. AllenHansen (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed -- Maybe not so much
There are requests for citation about why the sword fight is considered a high-watermark in fencing cinema. I understand that anytime something like 'is considered by many' is language that typically and correctly, gets red-carded, but in this case is not needed. It's like saying 'The Empire Strikes Back' is the generally considered the best of the Star Wars films or Casablanca is considered by many to be one of Hollywood's finest. A cite request here is well-meaning but was surely added by someone unfamiliar with the material. In case you haven't seen it, it's probably the longest sword fight in cinema, shot using full-length, full-weight foils, not those whippy, tin props actors usually have; and much of it in close-ups. Sure, the cinematograpghy is dated now, but such technical work was not re-attempted until the Three Musketeers was filmed in the 70s. And even then, Oliver Reed was stabbed in the neck and Christopher Lee was run through the leg.

'Considered by many' is justified in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.187.69 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Scaramuccia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)