Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/La Peau de chagrin

La Peau de chagrin
I've recently reconstructed this article, about the first book to establish Honoré de Balzac as a writer of substance. I'm going to take it to FAC, so thanks in advance for your comments! – Scartol  •  Tok  20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

 * Caption: 1897 title page image of La Peau de chagrin - Is the illustration from the title page or is it the frontispiece opposite the title page?
 * I'm not sure. It's one of a series of illustrations in the Commons Balzac category. The description on the image's description page is all I have. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You might try to find out. Those descriptions are not always reliable. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True indeed. I tried looking around, but couldn't find anything definitive. I changed it to simply "illustration". – Scartol  •  Tok  13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He shared some of his income from these with his parents, but by 1828 he still owed them fifty thousand francs. - It is not clear earlier in the paragraph that he borrowed the money from his parents.
 * Fixed. (It says earlier that he "moved back to his family in the suburb of Villeparisis and borrowed money from his parents to further pursue his literary ambitions"; I added "from his parents" to indicate who he borrowed it from. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Literary tastes in France at the time were varied - This statement seems like it could be made of any nation at any time - perhaps something a tad more specific?
 * Yeah, but re-reading the original source, I can't really determine how better to classify this. I just went straight to a discussion of the public's appetite for fantastic stories. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * in a May 1830 article, Balzac used the phrase "literary weathervane" to describe the trends he foresaw in the coming years - "literary weathervane" isn't very clear to me
 * Removed per above. I liked the phrase, but I don't think it's actually very useful. =) I think it had to do with him looking at four very different directions of literary approaches (the romanticism of Scott; the fantastic stuff mentioned in the article, etc). Like I said, more complex than we need to get into here, I think. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Balzac had used supernatural elements in the potboiler novels he published under noms de plume, but their presence in Peau de chagrin signaled a turning point in his approach to the use of allegory. - I think this turning point needs to be explained more clearly.
 * Fair enough. I added two sentences to try to clear this up: "Whereas he had previously used fantastic objects and events in earlier works, they were mostly simple plot points or uncomplicated devices for suspense. With La Peau de chagrin, on the other hand, the talisman becomes a method of analyzing the real world." – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this related to allegory? (Sorry to be so picky!) Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly; I would not have asked you to review the article if I didn't want you to be picky. =) I feel like this story is a superb example of the statement at the end of the lead in allegory:"the characters in a 'naive' allegory are not fully three-dimensional, for each aspect of their individual personalities and the events that befall them embodies some moral quality or other abstraction; the allegory has been selected first, and the details merely flesh it out."
 * I changed the sentence in the article for Pdc: "With La Peau de chagrin, on the other hand, the talisman is a symbol of Valentin's soul; at the same time, his demise is representative of a greater social decline." Hopefully this is more on the mark? – Scartol  •  Tok  13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the sentence now seems to suggest "symbolism" and "allusion" rather than allegory. Admittedly, whether something is a symbol or an allegory can often be difficult to determine, but if you are making the case for allegory - often an extended series of representations - I think something more than simply "symbol" has to be said. However, this could just be the picky literary scholar in me. I doubt anyone else will care about this distinction! Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do. Suppose I removed a mention of allegory and discussed symbolism. Would that be fair? (It better be, because I'm doin' it!) – Scartol  •  Tok  18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * French writer and critic Félicien Marceau even suggests that the symbolism in the novel allows a purer analysis than the individual case studies of other Balzac novels. - Why?
 * Added: "...by removing the analysis to an abstract level, it becomes less complicated by variations of individual personality. As an everyman, Valentin displays the essential characteristics of human nature, not a particular person's approach to the dilemma offered by the skin." – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The confluence of realist detail with allegorical emphasis continues when Valentin enters the antique shop. - This needs to be better explained, particularly the allegory part.
 * I added "...the store represents the planet itself". Maybe I'm too close to the article, but I tried to explain the connection in the rest of the paragraph – how the objects in the store each present some fact of human experience. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Allegory can be defined in several different ways, as you know. This would all be clearer if "allegory" were more precisely defined in the article. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be giving me too much credit as a literary scholar. =) I read Northrop Frye many years ago, and have obliterated much of it with public school curriculum and grammar specificities. I've always considered allegory in literature to be as described in the article: "sustained longer and more fully in its details than a metaphor, and appeals to imagination, while an analogy appeals to reason or logic". Perhaps you can clarify the different kinds for me? – Scartol  •  Tok  14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking in my dictionary of literary terms and I get this: "a story or visual image with a second distinct meaning partially hidden behind its literal or visible meaning. The principal technique of allegory is personification, whereby abstract qualities are given human shape--as in public statues of Liberty or Justice". It goes on to explain that an allegory can be an extended metaphorical system with two or more levels of meaning (e.g. Pilgrim's Progress), or it can be satire, or it can be a method of biblical exegesis (e.g. typology). Modern critical interpretation can be seen as an outgrowth of the typology tradition. I hope this helps! Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Even the story's minor characters represent types of individuals who, presumably, are recognizable to the reader. - How are these types realist? Usually types are not seen as part of realist writing.
 * Yeah, this was the one thing I wasn't too sure about. I don't really get what Millott's point was, but I wanted some way to complete that paragraph. I suppose I'll have to find something else, heh. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Details recounted by Valentin of his living quarters and the frustrations of living in poverty are considered examples of autobiography from Balzac's earliest days as an author - a little wordy or stilted or something
 * Agreed. Changed to: "Details recounted by Valentin of his impoverished living quarters are autobiographical allusions to Balzac's earliest days as an author:" – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel extrapolates this message from the individual to a general analysis of society: Balzac feared that the world was losing its way due to material excess and misguided priorities. - Is "this message" the one after the colon? If so, that is not entirely clear.
 * I added the phrase "like Valentin" to try and clarify: "Balzac feared that the world, like Valentin, was losing its way due to material excess and misguided priorities." Hopefully this helps? – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering of "this message" might refer to a previous sentence or whether it referred to the idea after the colon. Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A classic example of me being out of it. "This message" had referred to the previous section about will and desire. I tried to clarify, and shrank the colon into half of its original stature (made it a semicolon). Ah, punctuation jokes. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The corruption of excess is related to social disorganization in a description at the start of the final act. - "act"?
 * Yeah, I should just use "section". Critics often write about it as a classic three-act tragedy, but I think that just muddies the waters. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The publicity generated by the fragments released before the book's publication ensured that it sold out immediately after going on sale. Balzac used his connections in the world of journalism to have his books reviewed in every major Parisian newspaper and magazine. - I feel like this information is repeated too often in the article - the lead, writing and publication, and the reception.
 * Fair enough. I've trimmed the first paragraph to remedy this and the next point. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He was so well connected, in fact, that he was allowed to write his own review in some instances. - This was not uncommon in Britain - was it uncommon in France?
 * I can't really say, since I don't feel I have the knowledge of how it all worked. It certainly struck me as surprising, but if it was common in Britain, it makes sense that it would also be common in France. I took out the context and just mentioned that he wrote some reviews himself. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to integrate the material in the "Contes philosophiques" section more seamlessly into the article? Right now, it is just kind of sitting there. I wonder if it would fit better in the "Writing and publication" section or perhaps as a fourth paragraph in the first part of "Reception and legacy"?
 * I like the latter suggestion best. Moved. More to come! – Scartol  •  Tok  15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel has been cited as a possible influence on Oscar Wilde for his novel The Picture of Dorian Gray.[73] It also served as the basis for the libretto of Giselher Klebe's 1959 opera Die tödlichen Wünsche. - Briefly explaining the plots of these might help readers unfamiliar with the works to see the influence.
 * The opera is more of an adaptation, so I revised the description to make this clear. I added a sentence about Wilde's book. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of the captions repeat information in the main body of the article - it is better when they don't do that.
 * Really? I never thought of this as a problem, but okay. I'm taken a whack at them. (Hopefully you don't mean that every caption should have completely new info?) – Scartol  •  Tok  17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't reread the article to see if stuff repeats - I trust you! Awadewit (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of older criticism in the reference list - not many people writing on this novel nowadays?
 * Y'know, there's some – but most of it appears to suffer from the "Everything truly worthwhile has already been said" disease. The book of modern criticism I read for Le Père Goriot was all about the homoerotic tension between Vautrin and Rastignac (which I feel is a stretch) and these insanely close readings of minor bits of dialogue and all the postmodern interpretations of how The Word manifests itself as Society and so on. It would appear that the golden age of Balzac criticism in the US peaked in the 1970s, at the University of Chicago (they put out four books which are really good). Since then it appears to be scattered ideas, and not very compelling ones at that. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope this review was helpful! Awadewit (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Thanks again for your careful consideration. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)