Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/Louis Lambert (novel)

Louis Lambert (novel)
I'm hoping to send this article to FAC soon. I've remedied the only concern raised during the GA process, and I stand ready to receive other feedback. Thanks in advance for your comments. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Scartol--thanks for the invitation to review this. Now, I've only been through two pages so far, but I'll mention what I have mainly to beat Awadewit here. :)


 * The article often refers to "metaphysics" and "philosophy" together. In general, is there any way to clarify meaning here? Can metaphysics as used in the article be glossed for the reader? And one is a subset of the other—is the article implying a historical difference in the meaning of "metaphysics" when the book was written? Either way, would anything be lost by writing just "metaphysics and philosophy "—or alternately, explaining the "other" philosophy. It's probably there later, I just haven't gotten that far. :)
 * Yes, good point. I've differentiated and/or eliminated extra wordiness as necessary throughout the article. Let me know if you find any that I've missed. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the lead, I wasn't sure what "These details" referred to. The prior paragraph is not so different in content from this paragraph, so to me, "These details combine with events from the author's life..." becomes "Events from the author's life combine with events from the author's life...". :)
 * I can see how this is confusing to you. I've revised the prose to resolve this and the following point. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

–Outriggr § 06:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in this paragraph, you talk about a work within a work, and I found it a little unclear at times which work you were talking about. The sentence "It examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in the story until much later in his life" is the trouble. "It" is the essay, but we get to "in the story" and we've changed gears back to the novel; I don't know, then, what contrast the "although" provides. This sentence would make more sense to me if you meant "[the essay] examines the philosophy of Swedenborg and others, although the author did not explore many of the metaphysical elements in [the essay] until much later in his life".
 * I will make a few ce tweaks. I'd like to put birth–death dates after Swedenborg (like Balzac has now) as a little hint to the uninformed that the character in the novel is fascinated with a real philosopher.


 * Thanks for these, Outr. I'll make some replies and repairs later today or tomorrow. Just FYI: I put the mention of the Études philosophiques section back into the first lead ¶, since that's the standard we've agreed upon at WP:BALZAC. Most folks who study Balzac look for that info straightaway. – Scartol  •  Tok  14:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a little bold of me, but I decided the opening sentence was a little packed with French titles and we'd be back to discuss Études philosophiques later (indeed, in the fourth para of the lead still). I didn't realize there was a WP:BALZAC! (Has anyone informed User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back?) I'll finish reading the last two thirds at my own, horribly slow pace, by which time you and Awadewit will have honed to perfection everything I could possibly have commented on. Cheers! –Outriggr § 21:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First round finished. Thanks again! – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "The actual events of Louis Lambert are minor..." Is minor the right word here? Are you suggesting that, again, there is not much plot, or that the events are minor as in unimportant? Or minor in comparison to the novel's philosophical discussions?
 * Good point. Changed to "...are secondary to extended discussions...". – Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "the painful application of the strap"—"painful" is POV. Kidding! A joke! Hit me on the head if I become that type of wikipedian.
 * Heh. Don't worry, I've got a drawer full of them. =) – Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "like (in some ways) the title character's eventual madness"—this thought seems too brief. Could we get a little background on how Balzac considered himself to be somewhat "mad" by the time of the novel, or am I misconstruing? Are the critics saying that Balzac may not have intended this autobiographical similarity? ... Later... I see this is treated in "Genius and madness". A little stealing from that section, perhaps?
 * I've tried to clarify this. I hate "see below" comments in WP articles, so I've tried to avoid it. Hopefully I've made things more clear. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I missed this earlier. "Madame de Staël" is a real person, which me not know. Can this be hinted at in "Plot", with a re-introduction in "Swedenborg and metaphysics", where she is mentioned again?
 * Done and done. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With "These concepts are explored with relation to...", I have the same difficulty I had with "these details". Strictly, I am not able to relate the dream example to anything mentioned in the prior paragraph. Even "Swedenborg's concepts" would be an easy way out. "These concepts" appears again in the last paragraph of the sectoin. Finally, in "a force flowing between and among humans", are "between" and "among" both needed? Suggesting between two humans and among humanity, I suppose.
 * Okay, I've tried to clarify all of this. I personally think the "these concepts" wording is okay, but I'll defer to the reader, since I'm obviously not an objective party. =) – Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Something I just thought of: if "Traité de la Volonté" is an essay, should it be in quotes rather than italicized? Do your references do otherwise? If so, they win!
 * Yeah, it's always italicized. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are my comments. I did some tweaking in the article, however much of it is personal taste I leave for others to judge. I would support this at FAC. Again, thanks for the invitation–one of the rare pleasures on wp is to be asked to be involved in some small way in the few articles that have some real thought and research going into them. Cheers, –Outriggr § 06:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your careful and thoughtful comments. Cheers right back at ya. – Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit
I have very few comments - I ended up just reading the article and had to start over again to look for things to comment about! I think that is a good sign!
 * Aw, shucks. Thanks! (I learned from the best, heh.) – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Published under a variety of titles, Louis Lambert contains a minimal plot, focusing mostly on the metaphysical ideas of its boy-genius protagonist and his only friend (eventually revealed to be Balzac himself). - What is the connection between the title information and the plot information? Perhaps two sentences?
 * Yes, indeed. Fixed. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although it is not considered an important example of the realist style for which Balzac became famous, the novel is cited frequently as providing insight into the author's own childhood.  - a little wordy
 * True. I done cleaned it up. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An important essay referenced in the novel, Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"), was in fact composed by Balzac as a student. - I feel like the important information is buried in this sentence.
 * Not sure what you mean. Do I need to clarify something, or include some info from the section later on? – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I took another look at this comment and I think I see what you mean; sorry for the confusion. I changed it to: While he was a student at Vendôme, Balzac wrote an essay called Traité de la Volonté ("Treatise on the Will"); it is described in the novel as being written by Louis Lambert. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel emphasizes thought, particularly its expression among young thinkers and in written forms - a little awkward
 * Agreed. Clarified. It also seemed to stand out in the paragraph, so I tried to integrate it more smoothly. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not long after finishing the first version of the book, while infatuated with the Marquise de Castries, Balzac sent to her a fragmented love letter, as Lambert sends one to his paramour Pauline - a bit wordy
 * True. Remedied. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you say a little more about the reception? Who reviewed the book poorly? What publications? What did they say exactly?
 * Not really. I haven't been able to find much actual criticism, but there may be info in a book which I got recently. I'll see what I can add, but I doubt it will be much. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I found a specific detail – it was about how HdB was being godless and anti-family, so it feels weird to add it without anything concrete about (what sources say is) the major problem of thin plot. But it's interesting, at least. – Scartol  •  Tok  01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did this book not influence any other writers? (Just checking!)
 * If it did, no one ever admitted it. =) None of the sources mentioned anything about anyone (aside from his paramours, quoted in the article) citing it as an influence. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you were right and I was wrong. Apparently Flaubert was influenced enough to duplicate parts of the plot in his story "La Spirale". (Alas, I can't seem to find a copy online.) I added a few sentences about it. – Scartol  •  Tok  01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One down, 99 to go! :) Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your feedback and commentary. I owe you one. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)