Talk:Père Goriot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 20:02, 31 August 2024

Père Goriot is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 15, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
January 26, 2008	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
February 2, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Balzac (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Balzac, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BalzacWikipedia:WikiProject BalzacTemplate:WikiProject BalzacBalzac

France High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: 19th century Top‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Major themes

My main source for this new section was The Novel 100 by Daniel Burt, 2004, Checkmark Books. The author was a professor of literature at Wesleyan University. | Keithlaw 22:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vautrin's speech to Rastignac, which is widely regarded as a high point in the novel, strongly prefigures Nietzsche's idea of the Superman /fifty years later) who has the right to grab and use anything, kil anyone, and break the laws, because he can and because he has the guiding impulse. 46.195.41.233 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Lear?

Isn't there a relationship between the novel and King Lear? Can a short discussion be added? --Malcohol 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a source for that connection, sure. I don't see the relationship myself. Lear had three daughters, Goriot two. Lear banished one of his daughters, leading to the central plot, whereas Goriot never banished either of his daughters. One of Lear's daughters dies at the end, whereas Goriot's both live. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read King Lear myself, so it's not my just a random hypothesis of mine. The relationship is mentioned in the introduction to my old Pelican edition of "Old Goriot" (as it's called). With regard to the banished daughter, that could be Victorine Taillefer.--Malcohol 13:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a good citation. I say add it, and make sure you cite that essay in your edition, either via endnotes or in a References section. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had another glance at that introduction. In fact, the reference to King Lear is really just this passing remark: "... [Balzac] appears here to have deliberately chosen to show that a working-class Lear may exist, whose story is not less terrible or less affecting than Shakespeare's great king". For what it's worth, the book reference is: Old Goriot, Balzac, translated by Marion Ayton Crawford, Penguin Books, 1962. The introduction, by Crawford, is dated 1950. I'm not sure that such a minor comment would constitute a useful addition to the article, but if someone wants me to add it I will. BTW, I did a quick web search: "Goriot king lear" throws up several essays which explicitly consider the comparison. --Malcohol 12:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis

could someone please help me i need a thesis of Le Pere Goriot and i cannot figure one out— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.18.42 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

I have reconstructed this article, replacing it all at once with text scribbled in a userpage of mine. I've vastly reduced the plot summary, in accordance with WP:SS, and tried to include the same basic thematic overview as the previous version. Of course, if anyone feels that the new version is lacking – and can provide citations for claims – please tweak as necessary. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass and review

Without a doubt, this article passes GA: it is well-written; it is factually accurate and verifiable; it covers all major aspects of the topic; it is neutral; it is stable; and it is appropriately illustrated. Well done, Scartol! Here are my questions, comments, and suggestions beyond this stage.

Thank you kindly! As noted, I worked on it at my drawing board, then moved it here; I think that may be the cause of the disjointed paragraphs in places. This is the first time I've done such a thing, so I'm learning as I go.

Possible expansion:

Do we know the names of the artists for the illustrations?

Nope; the commons has images for all of his novels, sans attribution in many cases. I've tried to find more information, without luck. – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume more can be said about the serial publication and the book publication? For example, how many numbers did it take up in the magazine? What was changed for the book publication? Was the book multi-volume? Who published the book? Etc.

This info didn't jump out at me, but I'll try to track it down. I agree it would be helpful to include. – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A more extended description of La Comédie humaine and how this fits into it would be helpful.

Yeah, I wasn't sure about balancing an explanation of it with a focus on LPG itself, but I'll add more. – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balzac included 23 recurring characters in the first edition of Le Père Goriot; during his revisions for later editions the number increased to 48 - This leads me to think there should be an entire section on "Revisions for later editions".

Yes indeed, and I just yesterday got a new book called The Evolution of Balzac's Comédie humaine. Yay! – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the book only barely mentions LPG. Hopefully some of the other books I've ordered recently will shed some light. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Machiavellian marriages could be described in more detail in the "Family relations" section.

I think I had echoes of a wise friend who said "keep the summary short" in my ears. =) But I'll add more. – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Père Goriot is widely considered Balzac's finest novel. - This leads me to think that there is a lot written on this particular novel. How did you choose these sources out of the vast panopoly that must be available? I would also encourage you to add citations that indicate these readings of the novel are the commonly accepted readings. With literature, there are usually a few commonly accepted readings that everyone teaches in undergraduate courses and them a plethora of outliers. We need to reassure our readers that these aren't the outliers.

I agree that it's important to show that these are the consensus readings; I've tried to do so with multiple citations where possible. Beyond that (or discussing my selection process on the talk page, which seems silly), I'm not sure how to go about it. I tried to use sources and readings that overlap and match up with what I read when I studied it years ago for the first time. There are a number of other readings that I left alone altogether (a book called Approaches to Teaching Balzac's Old Goriot has lots of alternative approaches, but I didn't pull from it, since they're mostly "outliers"). Can you specify how I might make clear the mainstreamity of these sources? Thanks. – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that discussing your selection process on the talk page is silly at all. It is a way for future editors to check your work and for people unfamiliar with Balzac scholarship but familiar with literary research methods to see how thorough you were. Besides, it is a great teaching moment. Now that you mention this, I feel like I should go back and do this for all of the FAs I have written.

Okay, I suppose I can do this.

What I tend to do is make sure that the notes appear together for a certain claim (X, 45; Y, 46; Z, 47) so that the reader is at least assured that there are multiple places where the idea appears. This only partially works, of course, because sometimes we use that format to cut down on the number of citations, but it is one way to start.

As noted above, I've tried to do this as much as possible.

Another way is to say something like this in the text: "One of the most common interpretations of LPG is..." However, you have to be able to back this up. How do you know it is one of the most common? Sometimes Wikipedia's demands are ridiculous because it precludes you from including important knowledge. For example, I know that Alastair Duckworth's interpretation of Pride and Prejudice is one of the most important interpretations out there. His thesis about the "improvement of the estate" can be found in almost all undergraduate classrooms and has sparked much scholarly debate. However, it is hard to find someone who says that it is important for P&P, if you see what I mean.

Yeah, this feels the diciest of the options. It just seems to scream "Contest me"

Yet another way is to say, "renowned Balzac scholar AW argues that..." Again, this is a bit oblique, but it at least alerts the reader to the fact that a prominent Balzac scholar accepts that interpretation.

I like this best of all, and I've done that with Saintsbury, Rogers, Barbéris, and Brooks. (I tend to use "critic" rather than "scholar" to avoid arguments about their credentials.)

This is one of the biggest problems of writing literature pages. If you want to see what happens when too many scholars are quoted without enough context, see the current Sir Gawain and the Green Knight article. One moment was particularly good, however, which was when the editors noted that one scholar was traditionally given credit for being the first to use a particular interpretative lens (Ingham and colonialism).
I hope this was helpful. I continue to struggle with these issues myself all of the time and I don't think I've found the ideal solutions yet. Awadewit | talk 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful. Thanks for expanding. – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor prose issues:

Le Père Goriot (English: Father Goriot or Old Goriot) is an 1835 novel by French novelist and playwright Honoré de Balzac (1799–1850) and included in the Scènes de la vie privée section of his novel sequence La Comédie humaine. - Seems a little awkward - what do you think about two sentences? Also, how can a novel be part of a novel? Can this be made any clearer? Is it actually a novella, for example?

It's part of a novel sequence. I didn't want to wikilink it because it would make two bumping links. Maybe I should? – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case, the bumping links is the lesser of two evils. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set in Paris in 1819, it follows three intertwined characters - "The intertwined lives of three characters" or something like that?

Much better. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set in Paris in 1819, it follows three intertwined characters: the elderly title character and his self-sacrificing love for his daughters; a mysterious criminal-in-hiding named Vautrin; and a naive law student named Eugène de Rastignac. - Should we repeat Goriot's name for parallel structure? Also, the first clause in the list doesn't fit neatly within the pattern with its "and". Is there a way to rectify this?

I changed it to: "the elderly doting Goriot". – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The novel is also cited as a noteworthy example of his realist idiom, describing minute details to expose character and subtext. - Was it a "realist idiom" or a "realist style"?

My handy Wiktionary defines an idiom as "A style (of art, architecture, music, etc.)." But maybe to avoid confusion I should just use "style"? – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have explained my reservation over idiom - it is not denotative reservation, but rather a connotative one. For me "idiom" conjures up "idiomatic" and indicates that Balzac's style was unique to the point of not being replicated, which it was not. It influenced other writers, who adopted parts of it. That was why I thought something like "style" might be more appropriate. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay. Changed to "style". – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Père Goriot depends heavily on its historical background; the 1814 Bourbon Restoration had brought profound changes in society, and the struggle of class is ubiquitous throughout the novel. - I think you are using the semi-colon as a crutch here - can we make this flow better? What about something like: "The 1814 Bourbon Restoration, which had brought profound changes in French society...."

I've been known to crutch it up with the semicolons. I just made it into two sentences. (I'm not sure what the nature of your proposed revision was, sorry.) – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering if we could somehow get rid of "LPG depends heavily on its historical background" and just show how it depends on its specific historical background. The idea seems to be repeated twice. Sorry for not explaining more thoroughly. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the first sentence. I hope I'm not being a dunce, but if I were to adopt the phrasing suggested above, I'm not sure how I might end that sentence. So I've just left it alone. But now I feel like that paragraph lacks a coherent topic sentence. – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balzac analyzes, through Goriot and others, the meanings of family and marriage, providing a bleak perspective on these institutions. - Anything more specific than "bleak" would be nice.

Changed to "a pessimistic view of these institutions". – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Balzac began writing Le Père Goriot in 1834, he had published several dozen books, including a stream of pseudonymously-published potboiler novels, as well as Louis Lambert, Le Colonel Chabert, and La Peau de chagrin. - Dates for the publication of these works?

Added. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of "Literary background" needs a better transition, I think. It is a little confusing to the reader why we are suddenly talking about a grifter. :)

Again with the "don't start paragraphs with out-of-the-blue descriptions of unrelated things". =) I've added a transition sentence. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although history is not central to Le Père Goriot, the post-Napoleonic era serves as an important setting, and the use of meticulous detail reflects the influence of Scott. Still, Balzac accused the Scottish writer of romanticizing the past, and tried to distinguish his own work with a more balanced view of human nature. - I feel like the "still" isn't exactly the right connector here. It is hard to say why, though. Sorry.

No need; I think I catch your drift. Maybe I was hoping to make it carry more than it's capable of. Replaced with "at the same time". – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern mirrors Balzac's general use of characters throughout La Comédie humaine. - Which pattern exactly?

Clarified: "This pattern of people moving in and out of view..." – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balzac uses intense detail to describes the Maison Vauquer, its inhabitants, and the opulent luxury of the upper classes - I don't know if "intense" is the best word to choose. What about something like "meticulous"? Do you mean many details or precise details? or both?

Both. How about "meticulous, abundant"? – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balzac borrowed the latter detail from the expertise of his friend Hyacinthe de Latouche, who was trained in the practice of hanging wallpaper. - "borrowed" doesn't seem quite right - what about something like "gained" or "acquired"? I don't like those, but they seem along the right track.

Yeah, I stuck that in from the original HdB article, then tried to match it up. Didn't quite work. I used "incorporated". – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not enamored by "incorporated" there, either. Perhaps something will strike us while mid-plagiarism lecture. (I just gave mine.) Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme know if inspiration strikes. – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The house is even defined by its repulsive smell, undefinable except as unique to the poor boardinghouse. - Then it is not "undefinable", right?

Well, but we don't know what it smells like. Is it stanky feet? Old onions? etc. All we know is that nothing else smells like it. Maybe "undefinable" is not the right word. Maybe "unspecific"? – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed odd as the undefinable was being isolated to a poor boardinghouse, if you see what I mean. Perhaps something along the lines of "illusive"? Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "illusive" is good. Changed. – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries of society's strata and the urgency of ascending them is ubiquitous throughout Le Père Goriot. - Sounds a little pretentious - intentional, perhaps? Content and form reflecting each other? :)

Argh – you're not supposed to notice! =) Changed to: "The boundaries of society's strata and the need to conquer them are visible throughout Le Père Goriot." (I think strata is important to keep, as no other word quite fits, especially with the link.) – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping strata. This sentence just feels odd to me - its entire weight is in the "subject" section; then we reach "are visible". Well, yes. Whoo. Do you see what I mean? I feel like the reader doesn't gain anything from the "predicate" part of the sentence - it's top heavy or something. I don't think I'm explaining this very well. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think I get it. I've rewritten it as: "One of the most prevalent themes in Le Père Goriot is the quest to understand and conquer society's strata." Better? – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with Scott's characters, the historical milieu in which he lives is reflected in Rastignac's attitude. - This is just a teensy bit enigmatic. I get what it is saying, but I wonder if it is as clear as it could be.

Perhaps. I changed it to: "Rastignac expresses in his words and actions the zeitgeist of the time in which he lives." which also allows me to wikilink zeitgeist. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Everyone should know "zeitgest". Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balzac and his characters employ no nuance in describing the social Darwinism of this society. Odd agency here - How about "Through his characters, Balzac employs no nuance..."

Except that it also comes through very explicitly in the narration. I used: "Through his characters and narration...". – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "Through his text..." :) Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmm.. I like the distinction. I'm gonna keep it. Quit telling me what to do! You don't own this article! =) Just kidding. – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caption: The Charter of 1814 granted by King Louis XVIII of France created a legal structure dominated by wealth and set the stage for Rastignac's maneuvers in Le Père Goriot. - This is an odd mixture of reality and fiction.

You don't think it works? I kind of like the way it blurred things a bit. Confirm your disapproval and I'll change it. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative:The Charter of 1814 granted by King Louis XVIII of France created a legal structure dominated by wealth and serves as the backdrop for Rastignac's maneuvers in Le Père Goriot. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, deal. – Scartol • Tok 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Rastignac and Goriot himself represent individuals corrupted by their desires. - Is this supposed be "themselves"?

No, it is meant to refer to Goriot as the title character, but I think it's just confusing. I took it out. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick verb tense check might be in order - a few times I wondered if the past tense was correct.

Will do.

Organization:

The Shakespeare reference seems more of a "theme" to me than a "style" - the theme of filial loyalty/disloyalty is what Balzac was lifting from Shakespeare.

I've tried to think of an intellectual argument to mask the fact that I had a lot of trouble placing those images where they are and I hate to think that I'll have to move them. =) But I'll look into it. – Scartol • Tok 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copy editing as I was reading - obviously feel free to revert any of that. This was an engaging article overall. Sometimes I felt that the paragraphs didn't quite flow into each other, but this is not always possible to achieve. A pleasure, as always. Awadewit | talk 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'll keep working on the paragraphs as I go. – Scartol • Tok 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters from other books

The article says, "It marks the first serious use by the author of characters who had appeared in other books, a technique that distinguishes Balzac's fiction and makes La Comédie humaine unique among bodies of work."

Many, many fiction writers have used characters in more than one book. As stated, the sentence even includes sequels. Apart from those, the first one I can think off-hand is A Sentimental Journey, and I can list more if desired. Maybe the systematic use of the technique made Balzac's body of work unique up to that time. What do you think? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to this talk page to make the same comment. As written, this sentence doesn't make sense. —Bkell (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present version is better. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scènes de la vie privée VS. Scènes de la vie Parisienne

Article incorrectly stated at the beginning that Pere Goriot belonged to the Scènes de la vie privée series of de Balzac's La Comédie humain. It is actually from the Scènes de la vie Parisienne series of works, which correctly matches the La Comédie humaine template box. I have made the correction. Sowsearsoup (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source, Sowsear? Both Robb and Hunt list it in privée. Hunt includes this preface to his list of the scheme: "The Conrad arrangement is given here. It follows Balzac's own revised classification of the original 'Comédie Humaine' (sic) (1842–8), based on the Catalogue of 1845 (C), with subsequent modifications—the 1846 Prospectus for a projected new edition by Furne and Balzac's corrections on his own copy of the original edition."

As I wrote in the article: In 1843 Balzac placed Le Père Goriot in the section of La Comédie humaine entitled "Scènes de la vie parisienne" ("Scenes of life in Paris"). Quickly thereafter, he reclassified it – due to its intense focus on the private lives of its characters – as one of the "Scènes de la vie privée" ("Scenes of private life"). This is cited to Dedinsky, Brucia L. "Development of the Scheme of the Comédie humaine: Distribution of the Stories". The Evolution of Balzac's Comédie humaine. Ed. E. Preston Dargan and Bernard Weinberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942. OCLC 905236.

Perhaps you're looking at an older categorization of LCH? Scartol • Tok 23:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone edit the template at the bottom of the page? I would do it except I have no idea which position of la vie privée to place it in. --StephanNaro (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Hi All,

I hope you don't mind me adding a link to http://www.tailoredtexts.com/read/le-pere-goriot-balzac-honore-de/#!/10877/en/d/0/0/0/ . Basically, it is a link to the original edition but with annotations in English designed to help people whose English is stronger than their French. The annotations are completely interactive and can also be added by any registered users. The site (and its interface) is geared completely towards people who are reading foreign-language literature. Currently, there are 900+ annotations

I have talked to EdBever about this at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:EdBever/Archief/dec_2011 and have recorded this edit here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/tailoredtexts.com Thank you, Daniel 121.7.229.31 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping the definite article

This page move changed the title from Le Père Goriot to simply Père Goriot, for a stated reason. Yet the name is still given as Le Père Goriot throughout the article. Nor is there any mention in the article explaining why the different forms are used. This seems very odd for a featured article, yet I can see no discussion about this since the move was made well over 2 years ago. Can someone enlighten me about this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redux

I'm still not happy with the state of play. Let me state the problem once more.

Originally the article was titled exactly as per the French title, Le Père Goriot. Then on 25 February 2016 we dropped the "Le", because "all English-language editions (Oxford, Signet, Norton, Kindle, etc), list this title as Père Goriot, without the prefix, thus indicating that is the form in the English-speaking world".

OK so far. It's now Père Goriot. We start reading and immediately there's a problem: the very first words are not Père Goriot but Le Père Goriot. And that's repeated throughout the article. We look across to the infobox and see an image of the cover page of the French edition and there it is, Le Père Goriot (although the 2nd and 3rd words are much larger than the Le).

We seem to be having it both ways. If we're happy to title the article without the Le, then surely that must be reflected in every mention in the article of the English-speaking world's preferred form. Or would that jar with the form shown in the infobox? If so, why not show an image of an English-language translation front cover? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral

It is stated in the text that Goriot's funeral is attended only by Rastignac and medical student named Bianchon and Christophe (and paid mourners). Actually, only Rastignac and Christophe was there (and paid mourners), and Bianchon had to stay in the hospital. --MikyM (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]