Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/La Cousine Bette

La Cousine Bette
I have lovingly reconstructed this article over the past two months, and I believe it's nearly ready for FAC. First, of course, I'd like feedback on readability and clarity. Thanks in advance for your comments! Scartol •  Tok  12:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "lovingly reconstructed" - I would certainly say so - This is just so much better than before your work. Credit! :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  12:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan's comments:
 * Great work, as usual, Scartol. It's a great article for those like me who know very little about Balzac.  (As I've told you, the only exposure I've had to him is from The Music Man: "Baal-zac!")  The scholarship involved with this article is outstanding and quite impressive.
 * It is funny how often musicals are our introduction to culture and history. When Scartol was working on Emmeline Pankhurst, I had "We're clearly soldiers in petticoats" from Mary Poppins in my head constantly. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm as straight as they come, but I'm very gay about my musicals.  Much of my first encounters of literature, art, and music also come from Warner Bros. Cartoons.  "Kiww the wabbit..."  And I remember the MP song!  It has my favorite all-time lyrics: "We love men individually, but as a group we think they're rather stoo-pid!" ;) --Christine (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering about the tone of this article. The prose is excellent and interesting to read, but I wonder if it's a bit too flowery and "dramatic".  For example (right from the first paragraph of "Background"): Because of his lavish lifestyle and relentless penchant for financial speculation, however, he spent most of his life trying to repay a variety of debts. He wrote tirelessly, driven as much by the muse as by economic necessity. This regimen, which included a steady infusion of black coffee, took a toll on his physical well-being and brought reprimands from his doctor.[2]  My biggest issue is with the last sentence in the above example.  "...Brought reprimands from his doctor" doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic, ya know?  You do this kind of thing throughout the article.  Another example is a little later on: Balzac's rise to literary prominence occurred at a time of profound transformation in French government and society.  It's beautiful writing, but does it fit here is my question.  Perhaps it does, and that's what you're going for.  There certainly is internal consistency in this article, which is the first precept in the MOS.  And it is about a French novel, so perhaps it's appropriate to use this kind of language.  If you want, please ignore this feedback and take it for what it's worth.
 * I appreciate this comment, and I am always worried about this sort of thing. (I believe Awadewit mentioned something similar during the initial work on Balzac himself.) I think when I read his work, I tend to write like him. (His biographers do too.) Perhaps the tone should be changed in spots, but I personally enjoy mixing some poetic license into the academic rigidity. So I'll see what other folks think, and revise it as needed. Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this kind of language, particularly because it encourages readers to keep reading. The only warning I would give is that many FAC reviewers tend to balk at it, so be prepared to defend yourself. On guard! (The only sentence that gave me pause was the "muse" sentence.) Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Remember I know very little about the subject. Is there a reason there's no image of the writer himself?
 * No, no reason. There probably should be one. I realized this about halfway through the article. I suppose I could swap out Mme. Hanska in the first section and put him in instead. Let's see what other folks think. Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the image. People clamber to see the author. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not offended that I swapped pics. For some reason I can't stand that pencil profile dealie. Scartol  •  Tok  13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I love it that you've included quotes from "the original French", especially in the images. An article about a French novel should expose the reader to the language!
 * Yeah, I worried that it might be too much, but Awadewit agrees with you, so let's call that a consensus. =) Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's wonderful! Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the images, it seems that one of the benefits of writing an article like this is that the book's illustrations are old enough to fall into the public domain. You did a good job choosing the images in this article.
 * I was worried that some folks might consider them too abundant, but I really like having them. Hopefully others will agree. Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Was the text originally illustrated? (Note that FSF assumes these are the original illustrations (a perception many readers will have, I think), but they are not. Should this be made explicit somewhere?) Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. Is it enough to include in a footnote somewhere? Or do you think we need a note in the captions themselves? (I haven't found any real info about them to merit inclusion in the article.) Scartol  •  Tok  13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a footnote is a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the following to note 19: "Note that the illustrations in the article were added by various publishers and not part of the original novel." Scartol  •  Tok  15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is sufficient. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I love the Doyle quote, and the paragraph about Balzac's use of characterization is very interesting.
 * Heh, yeah. That paragraph is sort of boilerplate text that I use in each article about Balzac novels. I try to find information specific to each novel, but it is a good summary of what makes the characters stand out. Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a long article. I wonder if you should separate out some of the sections.  For example, perhaps you should create a "Characters of La Cousine Bette" article.
 * Yeah, I wondered about that. Right now the "readable prose" is 45kB, which is near the suggested limit of article length. But I also did my best to balance thorough rigor with extreme brevity. (How well I did must of course be judged by others.) So I guess we should wait and see what other folks think. (I'm not opposed to forking, but I'd just as soon leave it alone if it's all the same to other folks.) Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that the article should be cut down a bit. I'm deleting little bits here and there, but I do think that perhaps some sections should be condensed a bit more. I'm working on suggestions for this. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, lemme know what you think. I'll look through it again, but I'm worried that I'm still too close to it to be able to judge this sort of thing clearly. Scartol  •  Tok  13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * She attempts to instill this ethic of indefatigable labor (attributed to her peasant background)... Risking looking like a dolt, I don't understand this phrase.  What does "indefatigable labor" mean?
 * "Indefatigable" means "tireless". It's a fancy ten-dollar word that I often use instead of the simpler fifty-cent word. (This is a hideous violation of one of the cardinal rules of writing — see comment above about how I tend to write like Balzac.) I've changed that wording. Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another phrase I don't get: Structurally, these women are grouped around men, for whose devotion they vie: Valérie and Adeline compete for Baron Hulot, while Bette and Hortense each want possession of Wenceslas Steinbock. By "structurally", do you mean that in a literary sense?  I wonder if "these women are grouped around men" is even necessary.  Perhaps this works: "These women are grouped about men and compete for their attention and devotion: Valerie and Adeline for Baron Hulot, and Bette and Hortense for Winceslas Stienbock".
 * Yeah, that works. Changed. Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, nice job as always. Take thee this article to FAC!  Hope my comments are helpful. --Christine (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I'm looking forward to a smooth FAC (assuming people actually read the article — last time it felt like few people did). Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from Awadewit


 * In general, I found the writing in this article to be much wordier than your usual style. I have copyedited a bit as I was reading, but you might want to read through the article looking specifically for that issue. Here are some examples:
 * The second paragraph of the lead feels wordy to me. For example, Balzac sought to dispute the supremacy of author Eugène Sue, whose socialist fiction was the most acclaimed feuilleton writing of the time - "sought to dispute" > "dispute"? "the most acclaimed of the time"?
 * Repaired. I changed it to "challenged" for simplicity's sake. Scartol  •  Tok  14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The novel's characters represent rigid polarities of contrasting morality - Is "rigid" necessary?
 * Nope. Removed. Scartol  •  Tok  14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * His trademark use of realist detail is combined with a panorama of characters returning from earlier novels to create a sophisticated form of storytelling. - wordy
 * Replaced with: "His trademark use of realist detail combines with a panorama of characters returning from earlier novels." I'll do another scan through for excessive wordiness too. Scartol  •  Tok  14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The material in the "Style" and "Themes" section is poorly represented in the lead. Remember, some people never read beyond the lead!
 * I'll come back to this after we sort through the allegory stuff. Scartol  •  Tok  14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you get back to this? Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The final lead paragraph has info on style and gives an overview of each theme subsection. Scartol  •  Tok  17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We need redlinks for the adaptations. They deserve their own articles. (How shocking that the novel article came first!) Perhaps you want to write stubs for those articles? I see DYKs there.
 * Added. I'll see what I can find. Scartol  •  Tok  14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This opened new opportunities for individuals hoping to acquire wealth, and led to significant changes in social norms - What were some of these changes?
 * I added these sentences to clarify: "Members of the aristocracy, for example, were forced to relate socially to the nouveau riche, usually with tense results. The democratic spirit of the French Revolution also affected social interactions, with a shift in popular allegiance away from the church and the monarchy." Hopefully these are clear, and don't compound the length of the piece too much. Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This helps. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At the same time, a new style of novel was gaining popularity in France. - Is there a connection between this new style and the changes you describe in the previous paragraph?
 * Not that I've seen. Does the writing make it sound like there is? So far as I can tell they just sort of happened at the same time. It's possible that there's a connection between the democratization of the government (limited though it was) and a democratization (if you like) of the art form. But suggesting this would be OR, I think. Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "at the same time" hints at a connection. I bet there is one, but if you don't have the sources, perhaps a different introductory phrase would do the trick? Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to: "In the mid-nineteenth century, a new style of novel became popular in France." Scartol  •  Tok  15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a significant accomplishment owing to his bad health and earlier writing difficulties, but because it is one of Balzac's longest books, biographers agree that the speed of its composition was especially remarkable - This feels like a run-on sentence.
 * I agree. Reworded to: "This was a significant accomplishment owing to his bad health, but given its length biographers agree that Balzac's writing speed was especially remarkable." Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mme. Hulot's cousin, Bette (also called Lisbeth), harbors a deep but secluded resentment of her relatives' success. - What is a "secluded resentment" exactly?
 * A resentment you keep hidden. I personally don't feel it necessary to reword, but I will if you think it's necessary. Maybe I should just switch it to "hidden"? Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "hidden" is better. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. Scartol  •  Tok  18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The plot summary is a little difficult to follow for someone who hasn't read the book, but I think that is because there are so many characters to keep track of. This is probably one of those plot summaries that is best thought of as a "refresher", eh?
 * Insert joke about how complicated that other book's plot summary is. =) Do you think it needs to be refined? I tried to be both thorough and brief, which is tricky here. (I kept wincing when I had to leave out something just on the other side of essential.) Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that these plot summaries are extremely difficult. A one paragraph summary is sufficient for the person who hasn't read it but the more extensive summary helps remind those who have. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * previous appearances, however, give heavy significance to the characters' presence - I think a more precise word than "heavy" can be found.
 * Agreed. Changed to "deep". Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Her lust for revenge and malicious activities lead critics to call her "demonic - "malicious activities" reads oddly
 * Changed to "Her cruelty and lust for revenge..." Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He later used her native Douai as the setting for his 1834 novel La Recherche de l'Absolu, and dedicated his story Jesus-Christ en Flandres (1831) to her, a decade after he wrote it. - How essential is this material to understanding the creation of Bette? I would suggest deleting it.
 * Done. I suppose I thought it was weird to only have one sentence about her, but it looks fine to me now. Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another important character is the Polish sculptor Wenceslas Steinbock. - This is a weak beginning to a section.
 * Agreed. Combined it with the second sentence to: "The Polish sculptor Wenceslas Steinbock is important primarily because of Bette's attachment to him." Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Novelist Émile Zola called it an important "roman expérimental" ("experimental novel"),[83] and praised its acute exploration of the characters' motivations.[84][85] Other critics call attention to the nuance of plot and comprehensive narration style, and see it as an important evolution of the author's style – one which had little time to develop. Stowe suggests that the prose in La Cousine Bette "might in happier circumstances have marked the beginning of a new, mature 'late Balzac'". - This material is rather vague. I don't think much would be lost from the article if it were removed.
 * I agree, I suppose, with the bit about Zola. (On the other hand, since Zola is revered as the ubermensch of the naturalists, it seems important to include something about him in the main body text, especially since he thought it was such an important novel.) However, Stowe's point about the evolution of "late Balzac" is, I feel, very important. I would argue for keeping it. Scartol  •  Tok  16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But Stowe doesn't really explain what the late Balzac is. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll try to explain this more effectively soon. Scartol  •  Tok  18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Still working on this. I need to remember to grab the Stowe book from the shelf. Scartol  •  Tok  15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So apparently I mixed in Stowe's points to the earlier part of the paragraph. I've rearranged it to make his explanation more clear:"Some critics note that La Cousine Bette showed an evolution in Balzac's style – one which he had little time to develop. Pointing to the nuance of plot and comprehensive narration style, Stowe suggests that the novel 'might in happier circumstances have marked the beginning of a new, mature 'late Balzac''."Hopefully this is more comprehensible. Scartol  •  Tok  14:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes so much more sense. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The section on allegory needs to be explained better. What precisely is the allegory and how does it work?
 * I knew this was going to be problematic. =) I remember we tried sorting through allegory once before and I felt like I didn't understand it as well as I should to try to make the claim, so I just took it out. This time, though, I've worked really hard to make it as concrete as possible, using the original source material from Jameson and Bellos.
 * Jameson doesn't ever say (as most literary theorists don't, unfortunately): "This is the allegory I'm talking about." Instead, he discusses things like the "ancient mythological configuration" I quote in the article, as well as the "deeper personal myth" which is also quoted. I tried to get as specific as possible, but given the lack of specificity in the article, I really don't think it's possible to get more specific.
 * Therefore, I intend the word "allegory" in the subhead to refer not to a specific allegory, but rather the use of allegory as a tool. (In the same way we might discuss how character is developed in a work, as opposed to discussing a specific character.) I know this isn't the best way to explain the topic, but I feel that it's the best we can do (or at least the best I can do) given the source material we have to work with. (And I feel that given the number of times it's referenced in other critical texts, Jameson's essay is absolutely vital to include.) Scartol  •  Tok  17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll read the article this weekend and see if I can do anything to help. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; this section can only benefit from your input. Scartol  •  Tok  18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just took it all out. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like an example of lit crit echo-chamberism. It comes up a lot in the discussions of the novel, but I guess in the end I don't believe that it's "absolutely vital" like I did two weeks ago. =) So yeah, it's gone. Scartol  •  Tok  15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That article was quite difficult - I agree that taking it out was the right choice. There was no way we were going to be able to explain that (ahem) stuff. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Valérie's line about Delilah being "la passion qui ruine tout" ("passion which ruins everything") is a symbolic presence - I'm not sure how a line can be a "symbolic presence".
 * Yeah, that's bad wording on my part. Changed to: "...is symbolic". Scartol  •  Tok  17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These beliefs are reflected in La Cousine Bette. - This is a weak topic sentence.
 * Yeah it is. Changed to: "Balzac demonstrated these beliefs through the characters' lives in La Cousine Bette." Scartol  •  Tok  17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The political themes seems to get short shrift here. Can this section be expanded to really delve into these issues?
 * Perhaps, but the politics are very very much in the background. I was actually quite surprised to see people discussing them, because they really only exist in the novel for people who know for which tiny subtle clues to look for. (This is why I put this section last.) Most of the discussion about political themes in the critical literature is either very general and unspecific (as in Hunt and Robb), making it very difficult to include. The more up-front political discussions (as in Mishra and Ronnie Butler) often feel like they're stretching the actual novel to make their points. So I'm willing to consider expansion here, but to be honest I have no idea how I might do it. Scartol  •  Tok  17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's surprising. No need to expand if the coverage is so limited. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In contrast to the other sections, the "Reception and adaptations" section feels short. In particular, I was curious if more information on sales was available and more on contemporary reactions. Did Balzac puff his own book, the way he did others, for example?
 * I was also surprised by how little I could actually find about this stuff. The biographies always just say "It was a success" or "The critics loved it" and even the Bellos book titled Balzac Criticism in France, 1850-1900: The Making of a Reputation mostly focuses on what Zola thought and how Zola's interpretation of Balzac was tainted by his desire to use Balzac as evidence for his own leftist politics. (Bellos also goes way into the Fourierists, a discussion which I tried to keep as brief as possible. I could add more about that if you think it would help, but it appears to have been only one less-than-influential school of reactionary criticism.)
 * I think the fact that Balzac was finally about to marry Hanska and his declining health make sales figures and contemporary reactions fall by the wayside at this point in his career. In other words, by this time, people apparently kind of already knew what they thought about his books before they came out. The only real question was whether he had made his points skillfully in terms of literary craft. Or maybe the 30+ books I have on Balzac just aren't the right ones. =) Scartol  •  Tok  17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The 31st book would have the answer. I wonder if moving some of the material about "literary craft" which appear earlier in the article to this section would be an improvement or not. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally would think not. I like to keep that sort of thing in "Style". Scartol  •  Tok  18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is 45kb long - this is on the long side. I'm wondering if some material can be cut from the "Characters and inspirations" section. We learn a lot of details about the characters in this section, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to discuss these characters in terms of the themes that they embody. Many of the ideas introduced in the "Character" section are repeated in the "Themes" section, for example. Perhaps the material about the inspiration of the characters belongs in the "Background" or "Writing" section.
 * Yeah, Christine mentioned this above too, so I suppose we'd better find ways to trim it. I'll try to prune it this weekend. Scartol  •  Tok  17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to cut out as much as I can from the "Characters and inspirations" section to remove non-essential commentary, and avoid repetition. Hopefully this helps; the "readable prose" length is now 41k. I would actually argue against eliminating the section altogether, or merging its info with "Background" or some other section. You know me — I don't usually do a "Characters" section. But it seems pretty important here. Scartol  •  Tok  18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is good to compare - you wrote 32kB on Balzac AND all of this writings and now suddenly this one work can't be covered in fewer than 41 kB? :) Just a little friendly pestering. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dude, the Honoré de Balzac needs so much work given all the research I've done since. If that thing came up for FAC right now I'd probably vote no. I will definitely be rewriting it again. Scartol  •  Tok  17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What's with his portrayal of women anyway? I'm curious to read the book myself. Awadewit (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know what to think about all of that. It's curious too, since the reason Hanska wrote to him in the first place was to chide him for his negative portrayal of women in La Peau de chagrin. So I made a note at one point indicating that this book was kind of a full circle, and I wondered what she thought about it. (We don't ever really get mention in the biographies or critical texts. Someday I suppose I'll have to sit down and read all of their letters.) Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and copyediting; I think the Bette Davis pic swap was especially good. (I suppose I just love Helen Mirren so much, and I can't imagine wanting to associate yourself, as Davis does, with such a nasty character.) Scartol  •  Tok  17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya know, guys, I was gonna make this same suggestion, but I hesitated for the same reason. (Mirrin's most recent movie can be tedious, but it's worth the price of admission just to see her tell some underling, "Bugger off"!)  Davis' image is a better fit.  You'd think that her bio page, which is an FA, would explain why she chose "Bette" as her stage name, but it doesn't.  I'd bet, since she was called "Betty" her whole life anyway, she thought the spelling was cool.  Which it is.  Plus, the more exotic spelling and the association probably allowed her to play more villians and more complicated characters, which happpened.  At least that's my speculation, and has very little to do with this article, but fun to talk about anyway. --Christine (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bette Davis's article does mention it. Scartol  •  Tok  18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't explain why. That's what I'm curious about, doncha know. --Christine (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm really stupid for missing that. Yes, that's true — it doesn't mention why. (pounds fist) We demand answers! Scartol  •  Tok  19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)