Talk:The Red and the Black

Untitled
I think the author of this article is far more hostile toward Julien Sorrel's character than Stendhal himself was... Julien is a character who sabotages himself in many ways, not the least of which is by trying to be too clever, but his problem isn't so much that he's not *really* an intellectual (compared to who?) as that he's really young. He's smart enough to be dangerous, and it takes him some time to acquire some wisdom... Stendhal himself (as I remember it) refers to him as a "healthy plant", moving toward humanity as he grows older, rather than taking refuge in cyncism as many do.

Julien's central trouble is that he's ambitious for some form of achievement, but the world he lives in has left him no way of evaluating achievement. -- Doom 23:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your comment is probably directed at me, since I wrote the bulk of what is currently in the Plot section. I certainly disagree that I am "hostile" towards Sorel; he's a fictional character, after all, and if you meant that my writeup was "hostile," I still disagree. My goal was to reflect the character's portrayal in the book as precisely as possible. I think it's clear that Stendhal used his novels as social criticism, and the side of Sorel that sought wealth and status through hypocrisy was designed in that vein. Your comments above omit that facet of the character - it's not the ambition that is troublesome, but Sorel's willingness to lie or deceive to achieve his goals. | Keithlaw 04:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Doom on this one. While the question of whether the characterization is 'hostile' is plainly debatable, descibing him as a simpleton or as a piece in chess game played by others, amounts to a gross oversimplification of a much more complicated story. While he is certainly part of a game, everthing in the novel suggests that every other character is as well.  Furthermore the uncertain future of french society at the time of the novel - which does contain several anachronistic liberties of Stendhal's - as well as the actual events portrayed in the novel more than anything else suggest that no one really controls the game.  (this is another diversion from the literary standards of the time, a step away from the church and divinity in guiding human affairs...)

The sentence 'Stendhal uses his addled hero to satirize French society of the time, particularly the hypocrisy and materialism of its aristocracy and the Catholic Church, and to foretell a radical change in French society that will remove both of those forces from their positions of power.' Is also inaccurate. The first part here is again, hyperbole and oversimiplification, the second part about The 'hypocrisy of the aristocracy' is a remnant of the 1789 revolution; this event stifled, really killed the earlier liberalism and dynamic thought which characterized the french salons of Voltaire's time. Revolutionary thought - any thought became dangerous...

I would also suggest that characterization of Julien as a 'pseudo-intellectual' is probably not a very precise fit with the rest of the events portrayed in the novel. He is by all accounts exceptionally intelligent. It is his passion and his arrogance and his youthful pride which are his undoing.

"M. de la Mole relents when he receives a letter from Mme. de Rênal warning him that Julien is nothing but a cad and a social climber who preys on vulnerable women." This sentence neglects the facct that Mme. de Renal has written this letter under duress, at the direction of another. It also neglects the fact that she is madly in love with him.

I think this page needs to be rewritten.

joe neglecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Red_and_the_Black&action=edits the fact that this work actually appeared in 1830, the same year as the July revolution. It would probably be worthwhile to read Erich Auerbach's treatment of this novel in Mimesis.


 * Do whatever you like with the article; I don't own it. I can't follow some of your arguments; I will say that I think you're confusing the terms "intelligent" and "intellectual." Julien is intelligent, at least in some ways, but he is decidedly not an intellectual, as his intellectual pursuits are largely followed in search of material or status goals, rather than for enlightenment. That is what I meant by "pseudo-intellectual" - his intellectualism is a pretense. If you think other facts are "neglected," then fill them in. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made some amendments to the opening which temper the claims about Julien's character and hopefully hit some kind of fair balance, what Louis-Philippe would have called a 'juste milieu'... Ajcounter 16:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To the happy few
This phrase appears at the end of the text in the edition of The Red and the Black that I have: Penguin's 2002 translation, ISBN 0140447644. Apparently Stendhal used this epigram to close several of his novels and stories. | Klaw Talk 00:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a reference to Henry V, 4.iii: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;" --Shantavira 10:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you cite a source making that connection? | Klaw ¡digame! 15:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's actually a ref to Byron's Don Juan, which Stendhal was obsessed with, and which provides so many of the chapter epigraphs. Ajcounter 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's Don Juan Canto 11:


 * Then dress, then dinner, then awakes the world!
 * Then glare the lamps, then whirl the wheels, then roar
 * Through street and square fast flashing chariots hurl'd
 * Like harness'd meteors; then along the floor
 * Chalk mimics painting; then festoons are twirl'd;
 * Then roll the brazen thunders of the door,
 * Which opens to the thousand happy few
 * An earthly paradise of 'Or Molu.'
 * Ajcounter 15:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's weird that in the overall "Stendhal" page it says, "but Stendhal's use [of 'the happy few'] more likely refers to The Vicar of Wakefield by Oliver Goldsmith, parts of which he had memorized in in the course of teaching himself English. In The Vicar of Wakefield, 'the happy few' refers ironically to the small number of people who read the title character's obscure and pedantic treatise on monogamy"; but here Goldsmith is never mentioned. It's cited, too (Martin, Brian Joseph. Napoleonic Friendship: Military Fraternity, Intimacy, and Sexuality in Nineteenth- Century France. UPNE, 2011, p. 123). 24.19.250.71 (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Scraps


 * But where ’s the man who counsel can bestow,
 * Still pleas’d to teach, and yet not proud to know?
 * Unbiass’d or by favour or by spite;
 * Not dully prepossess’d nor blindly right;
 * Tho’ learn’d, well bred, and tho’ well bred sincere;
 * Modestly bold, and humanly severe;
 * Who to a friend his faults can freely show,
 * And gladly praise the merit of a foe;
 * Bless’d with a taste exact, yet unconfin’d,
 * A knowledge both of books and humankind;
 * Gen’rous converse; a soul exempt from pride;
 * And love to praise, with reason on his side?
 * Such once were critics; such the happy few
 * Athens and Rome in better ages knew.
 * --Alexander Pope, on the characteristics of an ideal critic in An Essay on Criticism (1711)


 * Stendhal would certainly have been familiar with the one of the best-known works of England's most celebrated 18th c. poets. 108.54.227.81 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jacobine vs Jesuit tensions
I remember the book using the ideological and ecclesiastical allegiances of the protagonist's clerical mentors and superiors as a dimension of the book. I miss this being mentioned in the article. meco 11:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some stuff to the plot summary about the historical context; Republicanism vs. Legitimism, Jansenism vs. Jesuitism etc. Ajcounter 16:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

New edits
I've just tidied up the plot summary, plus added something on the episode of the mission to England. I've also deleted a bit from 'Literary significance': the sentence which asserted that Stendhal was a 'writer's writer' who is more familiar to writers than readers seems plain wrong as far as I'm concerned, and would in any case belong at Stendhal, not on the R&N page, surely. Hope no one objects. Ajcounter 16:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also added a section on 'themes', which I think represents a sufficiently widely held critical opinion that it's not OR. There're clearly more themes, though - feel free to add! Ajcounter 17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Put in an info box and an image, though I'm not sure how long the image will last (since I couldn't really understand all the rules for fair use). Ajcounter 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Novel image
The picture does not do the work justice. It devalues what is otherwise a classic work of literature into what could be any dime-a-dozen romance novel. Can anyone get a decent cover art picture? Doktor Waterhouse 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that the image is terrible, though I think 'devalues' is over-stating things a little. But if anyone can find a more aesthtically pleasing cover, please replace the image. Obviously, the 'first edition' preference is irrelevant here, since the first edition of RN didn't have anything on the cover at all... Ajcounter 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Influence
I think the article should point out the immense influence that this novel had on later writers: (1) The theme of the ambituous, talented young man trying to break into a society that rejects him: a possible model for Eugene de Rastingac (Balzac's PERE GORIOT), Becky Sharp (Thackeray's VANITY FAIR), and Heathcliff (Bronte's WUTHERING HEIGHTS) (2) The theme of the deluded man attaining self-knowledge only when his life is ruined: Dmitri Karamozov (Dostoievsky's BROTHERS KARAMOZOV, which also borrowed the scene of the two girlfriends who bond when they visit him in prison) (3) The theme of love as an obsession triggered by jealousy: Proust's "IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME". CharlesTheBold (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION: TO THE HAPPY FEW
Guys, sorry to interrupt in this way (I'm not sure how this works), but this paragraph is NOT correct:

Julien Sorel’s story concludes with the quotation: “To the Happy Few”, a dedication variously interpreted to mean either the few readers who could understand Stendhal’s writing; or a Shakespearean allusion to Henry V (1599); or a sardonic reference to the well-born of society (viz. Canto 11 Don Juan, 1821, by Byron)l or to those living per “Beylisme”: personal happiness being the purpose of existence — accordingly, every action taken to achieve that is permissible — hence Julien’s expediency with people — wherein “La force d’ame” (“Force of the soul”) is the most important virtue, realised as courage, resolution, and moral energy.

Simply because it isn't Julien Sorel's story that concludes with the quotation "To the Happy Few"! This quotation concluded another of Stendhal's great novels: La Chartreuse de Parme. Yes, I checked. I won't delete the paragraph myself, as it's a fine paragraph and should be placed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Charterhouse_of_Parma. But I'll let someone else do it - someone who's logged in, for instance. I'm not. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.53.140 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

MORE HAPPY FEW QUESTIONS
One should check whether Stendhal himself actually used the quote "To the happy few" at the end of Volume 1 of the book. Most scanned texts found on Google do not show this quote at all. (Though the HTML on Wikisource.fr has it, it doesn't count as a proper source; indeed, the facsimile they link to,

http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Livre:Le_Rouge_et_le_Noir.djvu

doesn't have the quote). The only scan I've found that has it is this Gallica version. My own French edition (1964 Flammarion) doesn't have it, although it keeps a separation in two books. And in any case, if it should be there, it's definitely at the end of Volume I, and thus doesn't "conclude" the story of J. Sorel at all.

I will try to get access to a Pléiade edition, which in French would be the most scholarly edition available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.128.130 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

EVEN MORE HAPPY FEW...
The edit-before-last said "Standard editions..." have the quote and "... some online editions" don't have it. This is backwards by what I can see for the moment. I have a very standard French paperback from 1964 (Garnier Flammarion) which does not have the quote, and probably millions of French teenagers must have first read this edition around that time. The facsimile from Wikisource (from 1854, claiming to be "Seule édition complète, entièrement revue et corrigée") does not have it, and I can't find a source quote for the html version which does. Two scans of actual French editions from Google Books don't have it. At the moment, I only see a single actual French edition with the quote (which I linked above; it is from 1927), so if Wikipedia wants to make any claim to reliability on this issue, someone should check -- and quote appropriately -- from evidence going back to Stendhal. I assume the Pléiade edition will have the details, but I don't have access to it for the moment. Personally, I don't really care, and this is the last time I make any change unless there is some evidence that whoever is reverting my edits is actually trying to improve the scholarly content of this article. (What alread happened already is enough for a very interesting blog post...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.128.130 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For what's worth, the "Happy few" quotation does not appear in my 1958 "Le livre de poche" edition, nor in my 1980 Italian translation published by Rizzoli. Goochelaar  (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of the title
From the article: "The novel’s title denotes the contrasting uniforms of the Army and the Church." That's not fact. There needs to be a reference for this, or it should be changed to "Some suggest that the novel's title...". I studied the novel and the professor (Stendhal is one of his areas of expertise) mocked this explanation because French army uniforms have never been red (not mainly red at least).

The book is not an "historical novel", is it?
The book takes place at a time approximately the same as the time of writing, so it is not an historical novel, to all intents and purposes. And yet user Wran reverted my deletion of "historical". The definition of "historical novel" from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica as cited on Wikipedia, "Historical Novel":

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, a historical novel is "a novel that has as its setting a usually significant period of history and that attempts to convey the spirit, manners, and social conditions of a past age with realistic details and fidelity (which is in some cases only apparent fidelity) to historical fact. The work may deal with actual historical characters...or it may contain a mixture of fictional and historical characters.

This is not what Le Rouge et le Noir is. Cerberus™ (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, yes and no. It isn't a normal piece of historical fiction, since it was set in the very recent past, but it was intended as historical fiction in some sense. Stendahl himself compared Le rouge et le noir with Scott's historical fiction ("Un jour, ce roman peindra les temps antiques comme ceux de Walter Scott.") and subtitled it self-consciously as "A chronicle of 1830" even though it was published in 1830.   (By the way, the article should talk about the alternate subtitles... but that's another issue.) --Macrakis (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, we could add a discussion about how Stendhal intended it or (would have) called it, that would be a great improvement. It's just that merely adding the word "historical" in the introduction does not seem to give readers the right impression about what to expect. But I'll let others decide what they want to do with it now. Note, by the way, how the info box, which I did not touch, has "psychological novel, Bildungsroman". Cerberus™ (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Amazon review as reference?
The criticism of "Burton Raffel’s 2006 translation for the Modern Library" uses as a reference a review written on amazon.com. Is such a review really a valid source? Jfmantis (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, 12 of the 14 customer reviews on Amazon are positive. Even if we were to stretch and say that an Amazon customer review is a valid source here (which clearly it isn't), to cite one negative review against the overwhelming majority is disingenuous at best. Refoelp (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

abbe chelan
Is it really the Abbe Chelan that sends the devastating reference to M de la Mole, as currently stated in the article? He seemed to me Julien's oldest supporter. Mme de Renal's manipulating 'confessor' is never named? Also, is it fair to describe Mathilde as 'languorous'? Sure she's full of ennui in her clique, but she seems pretty energised when it comes to Julien, especially in her attempts to save him. 151.237.238.105 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)