Talk:Candide

Slave Outside Surinam

I think an incident outside Surinam in the book should be added. I've already tried twice but it was rejected as "unconstruc-tive", whatever that means. Basically, Candide and Cacamba are walking along when they find a slave by the side of the road who's lost a hand and leg, apparently in labor. He's been left there to die, it seems, and complains the Church teaches that everyone descends from Adam, and "you must admit no one could treat their relative more horribly." They held him to Surinam before splitting up. This is a very important part of the book, as it shows a view on slavery and racism practically unheard of at the time. Does someone want to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M carteron (talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the synopsis of this article is probably not going to get any longer. See the discussions between Awadewit and me in the above peer review. -- rmrfstar (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction section is too long

The introduction (i.e. the first three paragraphs of the article) is a bit long. This section should be a very short and basic synopsis. Most of the material here can be moved into the body. I can do it myself unless someone else wants to.Ekwos (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Certainly, I don't think that "most of the material here can be moved into the body". The lede section is already a summary of the body. Indeed, a lede section is supposed to summarise more than the synopsis. And this lede's length is perfectly normal for a Wikipedia article of Candide's length and quality. Also, the reader is supposed to be able to read only the lede and get the gist of the subject. I can't imagine a shorter lede satisfying this criterion. See WP:LEDE:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points...

See the bottom of that page for a general guideline on how long these sections are supposed to be. If you have any thoughts as to specific parts (e.g. a sentence or two) that are unnecessary, we can look those... but in general, I think it's fine. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In the case of this particular intro, I think everything after the first sentence looks like body. A good intro should read like a really boring newspaper piece with just the basic facts (i.e. Candide is a novel written in such a language in such a year by such an author) with no intepretation and nothing else. The top blurb really exists so that a person looking for something can determine if the article itself is relevant. There can be an introductory section in the body but this should be different from the intro blurb in the article which exists solely as a referencing tool for someone looking for something.Ekwos (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article's lede section is the one section that everyone reads, and for many people the only section they read, so I doubt very much that the argument that our ledes "should read like a really boring newspaper piece" is going to carry a awful lot of weight. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of the lead is to help a reader be sure they have found the correct article for what they are looking for. So, the quicker one can make such a determination, the better.Ekwos (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the consensus across Wikipedia. See above. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rmrfstar. The lead's length is ideal. This length allows the lead to provide necessary background information and makes it a good stand-alone summary of the article, which is the convention per the style guideline at WP:LEAD. Emw2012 (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Picky Points

I have two points of contention with the article.

1)At the end of the "Style" section, the following sentence: "Some view the portrayal of the Jewish merchant in Lisbon as anti-semitic; however, in Constantinople at the end, Jewish bankers alone will deal honestly with the foreign characters," does not appear to be supported by the text. In a translation of Candide by Lowell Bair, there is no reference whatsoever to Candide having been dealt honestly with by Jews, and in fact, the following passage appears on page 117 out of 120, in explanation of why Candide cannot live well despite his once great wealth: "But he had been so cheated by the Jews that he had nothing left but his little farm." If anything, Candide may not be considered antisemitic because Voltaire does not pick on Jews any more than any other ethnicity or nationality or creed throughout the book. If he must be considered antisemitic, it is only fair to consider him anti-everything else that he lampoons. But the text does not specifically support the statement given in this section.

That sentence you mention, indeed that whole unreferenced portion, was added without any references and by an anonymous editor who seems to have gone willy-nilly and added a bunch of bad material (see the diff. I agree that the statement you highlight is not supported by the text. I have deleted all of the baseless additions of this editor.

Thanks for catching that.--68.80.122.94 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2) In the Conclusion, and echoed in the Introduction, is the notion that the garden statement at the end of the book is enigmatic. It wasn't enigmatic to me or to Voltaire scholar Andre Maurois when he implies that the statement, "We must cultivate our garden" is a direct analogy to looking after those things in our life that are in our domain. What are the other views on this statement? The article isn't clear, except to source the fact that some scholars consider it a contentious conclusion, which would could simply be inferred if instead the alternative interpretations were given.--68.80.122.94 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there are many readers who do not find the conclusion enigmatic. However, these readers all disagree. For views other than your own, see the sections entitled "Conclusion" and "inside/outside controversy". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if I could get my wish for this article, the conclusion section would include some form of list describing the various interpretations of the ending, which could then be explained in detail below. It's difficult to read which interpretations are important and which stand in direct opposition, as opposed to when the editors are simply out to convince me that the ending is difficult to interpret. It's also difficult to believe there could be no common interpretation which would contrast with many more minor interpretations (some interpretation supported by 65% of scholars say, while other interpretations may be supported by far fewer scholars). There's a difference between saying, "No conclusion exists, but here are some guesses," and "Here are the common interpretations, but here are the notable disagreements."--68.80.122.94 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not out to convince you simply that the conclusion is enigmatic. I think that the variety of interpretations, and the multi-dimentional spectrum on which they lie, are very difficult to treat both completely and from a NPOV. The theories highlighted in the article are only the most popular or significant ones. I'm sorry but I don't think that any quantatative data exist that break down their relative popularities. Also, considering the conviction with which so many literary critics describe their interpretations, and taking into account the magnitude of the holy war that has been waged over the novella's conclusion, I think it's important to make clear to the reader that there is *almost* a complete lack of agreement over which basic tenets should be assumed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree that the conclusion doesn't take good space to convince me the conclusion is enigmatic (though I agree that's not all it does). I also can't agree that there isn't an NPOV way to approach the debates and I contend that there is POV expressed here by the notion that the conclusion to Candide is enigmatic in the first place. Saying so directly is tantamount to someone else saying the conclusion was obvious. The only fact that could change that is a list of disagreements important enough to warrant the enigmatic conclusion statements. The conclusion takes the first three sentences to make a point it shouldn't be making:

"The conclusion of the novella, in which Candide finally dismisses his tutor's optimism, leaves unresolved what philosophy the protagonist is to accept in its stead. This element of Candide has been written about voluminously, perhaps above all others. The conclusion is enigmatic and its analysis is contentious.[74]"

There is only one source for this. If the author of that source is saying that the conclusion is enigmatic, it's his opinion. Unless I see a list of other sources that agree, it cannot be taken as fact. It should be worded, "One critic finds the conclusion enigmatic," or so changed to accommodate the amount of viewpoints expressed. It is the fifth sentence into the conclusion before a viewpoint is described specifically, and even then it is clouded in a sentence that claims controversy. Here are another few troubling sentences:

"Critics argue that the group's reclusion on the farm signifies Candide and his companions' loss of hope for the rest of the human race."

What critics?

"This view is to be compared to a reading that presents Voltaire as advocating a melioristic philosophy and a precept committing the travellers to improving the world through metaphorical gardening. This debate, and others, focuses on the question of whether or not Voltaire was prescribing passive retreat from society, or active industrious contribution to it.[77]"

Again, explanations couched in an explanation of the debate instead of the point. This time it's sourced, but it turns out it's the same author and book as the source for [74]! How many critics think the conclusion is enigmatic? I'm just discussing the conclusion section, the inside/outside controversy section is a bit different. I know something about literature, and I know that the conclusion to a work is important because it is often contentious. Critics/scholars will never find agreement with one another on any literary work of prominence because of the nature of literature, but more importantly because of the nature of academia. Critics/scholars make a name for themselves by disagreeing and arriving at contentious conclusions! But there are often more basic interpretations. If this section wants to take the NPOV stance that the conclusion is enigmatic, it must clearly state a number of positions and some credible adherents, or it should not take the readers time telling them the conclusion is enigmatic, as I pointed out above. If done so properly, the lack of agreement can be inferred (as indeed it should for any prominent work of literature). I can't do this because I don't have the data. The Candide article is a great one, but this is an area for improvement, as I see it.--68.80.122.94 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John Byng

While there is no doubt the incident was inspired by the execution of Admiral Byng, does Voltaire actually use the name? And I don't believe Byng was actually shot in the skull-- Voltaire takes some license here. Kablammo (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing article

I am so astounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.152.10 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

a question, and a fairly major omission

One question, one suggestion.

Although it's been a long time since I studied Voltaire, I'm wondering whether in French literary history the work of Rabelais shouldn't be considered a precursor. As I said, long time since I studied it. But both Candide and Gargantua and Pantagruel are long episodic prose narratives written in a satiric vein within the same language tradition.

Also, it seems a major omission in the elucidation of the Garden not to at least mention Epicureanism. The meaning of the Garden in Epicurean philosophy is one of the main reasons the sentence is so wonderfully irreducible and produces so many points to ponder when you try to unpack it. The Enlightenment saw a major revival of the Epicurean philosophical tradition (Thomas Jefferson famously took an interest). Just a few examples from a superficial Google Books search: "Voltaire … thought of himself as an Epicurean" (Peter Gay, The Enlightenment); "Voltaire was probably drawn to the word jardin because it would remind readers of both the Garden of Eden and the garden of the ancient philosopher Epicurus" (David Wootton, Candide and Related Texts). It's pretty much a commonplace to view the ending of Candide in light of Epicureanism, as here; Martha Nussbaum also takes it as a given here; John Gray says that Voltaire ultimately failed to be an Epicurean, with the implication that his attempt is necessary to constructing what he ultimately meant to say with the jardin; Simone de Beauvoir alludes to the Epicureanism of Candide's garden in her essay Pyrrhus and Cineas. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate TFA

It's not a video game or anything. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)