Talk:The Count of Monte Cristo

The authors error

Thrilling novel from Alexandre Dumas. The book is long but every page is interesting, but the author has made an error with the narration. While the count was in jail he learns to count the number of days he was imprisoned and also to calculate the time and date. But after he makes the prison break the first question he asks to an outsider is for the date and year which was not needed as the count already knew it. The author included these lines to make the prison break thrilling but in doing so he made a big error. PleasE advise if I am correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenifer.Kesavan (talk • contribs) 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Jenifer.Kesavan (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the space at the beginning of your message as otherwise Wikipedia formats it in an almost unreadable way. Richard Pinch (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Dantes asks the date because he did not keep track of time for the first 5 years or so of his imprisonment. I don't think it is an unreasonable scene. I would imagine that being without a calendar for 14 years it would be easy to lose track of a few of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.10.165 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jenifer,

There are no 'big errors', and no small ones either [unless noted as possible contradictions of an historical nature in the footnotes of the OXFORD English Edition] in "The Count of Monte Cristo".

Dantes asks for verification of the date shortly after his escape simply to confirm, in his own mind, that the Abbe Faria had been precisely on target in his calculations. If this date, a small matter, is correct, Dantes seems to reason, then how much closer to reality is the probability that Faria's treasure exists! (There had been talk of the Abbe's madness, as you recall) [Hong Kong contributor]

I also wish to add two further points.

Dumas originally composed this novel as a serial which appeared periodically in a small Parisian newspaper. If his readers had missed any details in the previous issue, they needed to be informed of key points in the narrative which might have seemed repetitive to some readers, but not to those who missed the preceding episode.

Secondly, Dumas wanted to emphasize that Edmond had been incarcerated in the Chateau d'If for precisely 14 years, a fact that will prove important, of course, in presenting future events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.89.163 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.141.157 (talk)

Improving the Homage and Adaptations

A quick look over the Homage and Adaptations section suggests to me that it should be sorted into something like:

Video/Movie/TV:

- Original Story

- Sequels

- Borrowed Plot

Books:

- Sequels

- Borrowed Plot

There may be some more sections to sort it into, but here's an idea to get you started cleaning it up. David Nemati (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Error in the diagram

There is an error in the diagram. Eugenie does not run away with Julie. She runs away with Louise d'Armilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.99.2 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed!! This needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.69.71.200 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Y  Corrected by removing the words "with Julie".  --Lambiam 09:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional diagram error (not sure if this needed to go under a new heading?): the French usage is wrong for "Mlle de Saint-Méran" and "Mlle de Morcerf". Should replace "Mlle" with "Mme", that being the correct abbreviation of Madame whereas the other is for Mademoiselle ("Miss"). (Although for consistency, someone could also add various omitted titles: Marquis & Marquise de Saint-Méran, Baroness Danglars.) Scarletp5 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Is terrible. Characters aren't introduced so you have no clue who Albert is and plot points are skipped so you have no clue what happens with Villefort.--Craigboy (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Homage and adaptations

I suggest we cut the "Homage and adaptations" section. The work has been used, adapted and inspired others for over 150 years - the list doesn't add to the article. WP:TRIV says "Trivia sections should be avoided." Any objections? Thanks Spanglej (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how I agree! Ccady (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the "Homage and adaptations" should be moved to its own page. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

#Trivia articles says "Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided" and explains why. It also says that the info should all be referenced. Also see WP:LIST. Almost none of it has citations. I cannot see what purpose a list article would serve and can't imagine it would have traffic. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivia is irrelevant, but the Adaptions of a work have significance in and of themselves. The fact that so many people have added to that section would seem to be proof in and of itself of their significance and that it would be used. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that "fact that so many people have added to that section" makes it a relevant section. 66.201.44.106 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the section, keeping the notable stage, book and audio adaptations. Places where the book is mentioned (TV episodes, songs etc) I have removed under WP:NN, WP:TRIV. I have also condensed the plot, (WP recommends four paragraphs). Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Character list

Re MOS I have edited the character synopsis, taking out their full story in the book, condensing it to who they are and their key role. Spanglej (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The article Edmond Dantès largely repeats information already found here, and further contains nothing of note that would be out of place here.  --Lambiam 11:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. No. --122.124.161.23 (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Do you happen to have an argument for your No !vote?  --Lambiam 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The Character is seperate to the novel. There is much background information on the novel in this article which would be irrelevant for # Edmond Dantès. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.47.3 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

[Note: some auto-formatting error had left the rest of this page as a comment before I unbroke it - William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)]

Neutral. What you say is true. However, information about the character could rather be gathered in the ED page as a detailed article so as to leave space for the novel as a piece of work in this page. Best regards,--ટ 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC) (Thanks to William M. Connolley, talk for unbreaking the spell) 20:32, (27 November 2011 (UTC))

Oppose. The character is important in his own right. User:Spanglej

support - the character is not notable in his own right William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

support - the character is not notable outside the context of the Count of Monte Christo. MurfleMan (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

the first Luc Sante quote

it is confusing. It could imply that the "Count of Monte Cristo" was the specific antecedent to the stories of Micky Mouse, Noah's Ark and Little Red Riding Hood, which do not seem to be connected in any way.

Characters relationship diagram

The diagram attached to this article does not really function as when enlarged the type font remains illegible and therefore unreadable, a useful diagram if it is readable but just a frustrating waste of time and space if unable to be read.Norwikian (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Span (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The diagram font is definitely legible on my screen; small, but 100% readable on full-size 2,448 × 623 pixel svg. Scarletp5 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And is it useful? Span (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The diagram could have been useful indeed if easily readable (or simplyreadable.), which is definitely not the case. I suggest its removal while waiting for a technically better version of it.ટ 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is very well-designed and extremely useful for this complicated tale, but readable to me in only two of its formats, the 127kb and the 2000px. So I suggest that it be retained but in the 127kb -- as a linked thumbnail on the page with a warning that it is a large file, i.e. (large file 127kb), and a reference to the availability of the other format as well, I.e. (see also a PNG version 2000px). The non-readable formats should be deleted. Kessler (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why 2 pictures of the author?

Why are there two identical pictures of the author? 66.234.204.13 (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's removed.Span (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)