Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Le Père Goriot

Le Père Goriot
Insofar as it's usually described as Balzac's most important novel, this article is on its way to FA status. I've received invaluable assistance from, and I think it's nearly ready for FAC. In her GA review, she suggested more information about the publication and revision history, which I have been unable to locate in the 10+ books I've consulted. I would also point out that both she and I are generally opposed to cluttering up the top of articles with infoboxes, which tend to repeat details already in the lead.

Thanks in advance for your feedback! – Scartol  •  Tok  21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great article, good read and well put together. I have a few (non-infobox related) comments, but they probably won't help you at an FAC.
 * The caption on the image Image:Vidocq.jpg is ambiguous. Is the man in the drawing(drawing?) Eugène François Vidocq or the character Vautrin? Currently the caption uses Vautrin as the subject, implying it is an image of him. But I think it's really Vidocq, how about "French criminal Eugène François Vidocq was the basis for the charatcter..."?
 * Good call. Changed. – Scartol  •  Tok  03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider using a "Further reading" section to list some of those books/papers that addressed the novel but didn't make it into the references, like Approaches to Teaching Balzac's Old Goriot (you mentioned on the talk page) and "Predators and Parasites in Le Père Goriot" (Symposium; Spring93, p3-33).
 * Mayyyybe. I generally don't care much for "Further reading" sections, but I don't suppose it can really hurt. Maybe I'll just throw 'em into the bibliography.


 * If you come across any further information on the publication history over the centuries, it would be good to add to the article. For example, Burton Raffel appears to have made a recent (1990s) translation. Or even its translation into other media. I like mentioning audiobook versions. Oh look, it has an imdb entry heh heh heh.
 * Yeah, I kinda feel like at this point it's been published and republished so often that unless a particular edition is notable in itself (read by Patrick Stewart or some such), listing them all gets tedious.

--maclean 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! – Scartol  •  Tok  03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:Qp10qp
I found this an excellent, comprehensive and clean article. I've never read the book, but I've seen it analysed often enough (Percy Lubbock is good on Balzac), and so I have an awareness of it. I don't have any serious criticisms of the article, but I noticed a few spots where I felt the language could be more precise:


 * makes La Comédie humaine a singular collection of writing. A little loose?
 * I suppose. Changed to "unique among bodies of work"; I don't know if this is tighter, but it feels more straightforward. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel is also cited as a noteworthy example of his realist style, using minute details to expose character and subtext. If it's cited, it's noteworthy, so perhaps the latter word is redundant. I'm not sure if "expose" is the mot juste here—subtext, for example, is by definition unexposed.
 * True and true. Fixed. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This new detail sheds considerable light on the actions of all three characters within the pages of Le Père Goriot, even as their stories evolve and expand in the later novel. Not quite sure what "even as" indicates here.
 * It was meant to contrast the fact that we get new insight on the stories in LPG at the same time as we learn new info about their lives after the end of that novel. I changed it to: "complementing the evolution of their stories". – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * the details employed – and their reflection of the realities of life in Paris at the time – create a faithful rendering of the world of the Maison Vauquer. Can you create a rendering? What about "faithfully render"?
 * Much better. Changed. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the main themes in Le Père Goriot is the quest to understand and conquer society's strata. Can you conquer strata?
 * Argh, this sentence again! =) Changed to "ascend". – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * serve as microcosms which Rastignac seeks to ascend. Can you ascend microcosms?
 * Okay, okay. Changed to "master". – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * His urban exodus is like that of many people who moved into the French capital. Can one person have an exodus?
 * I think so; I've seen it used for individuals and small groups (like families) before. I hope you won't be offended if I hang onto this one. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The shifting sands of the events in France provide Vautrin with a playground for an ideology devoid of any value aside from personal advancement; he guides Rastignac in the same direction. ¶ Still, it is the larger social structure that overwhelms Rastignac's soul—Vautrin merely explains the methods and causes. Although he rejects Vautrin's offer of murder, Rastignac succumbs to the principles of brutality upon which high society is built. "Still" signals an antithesis, but I can't find one. I suspect the overall point of the above could be made more succinctly.
 * Agree with the last part. Reworded that sentence to: "France's social upheaval provides Vautrin with a playground for an ideology based solely on personal advancement; he encourages Rastignac to follow suit." The "Still" leads into the contrast between society and Vautrin as the ultimate corrupting force. I added a "finally" which should help clarify. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * suggesting an irreconcilable split between society and the family. Can you reconcile a split? Is not the family a unit of society? Perhaps a little more is needed to make the point clear.
 * Fair enough. Changed to "a fundamental schism" and added a word about why his daughters abandon him. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel is set during the years after the 1814 Bourbon Restoration, which brought profound changes in society and Le Père Goriot begins in 1819, following Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, after the House of Bourbon had been restored to the throne of France. Speaking with my historian's hat on, I wonder if it might be best to choose one of these dates, even if both are broadly applicable. For me, the marker for a change of era would be the final defeat of Napoleon.
 * Good point. Employed 1819 for both. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * During this tumultuous era, France saw a tightening of social structures. I agree about the tightening of social structures during this period, but I'm not sure that tumultuousness was the cause. Usually social structures become loosened during a tumult, as happened during the revolution.
 * Yeah, I was a little uneasy about my own wording there, and I thank you for reminding me to fix it. Removed "tumultuous". – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, you almost make me want to read the novel, depressing though it sounds. qp10qp (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, but it's so beautifully written! Like The God of Small Things, it graciously combines beauty with the rain. Thanks so much for your detailed review. – Scartol  •  Tok  19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it wasn't that detailed. I couldn't think of much to say, since the article was so well done. Give the cat another goldfish. qp10qp (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw shucks. (blush) The point is, you looked. And I'll bet the editors at FAC will prove you wrong! =) Cheers. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)