gaussalgo/Canard_Wiki-augmented huggingface dataset:
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Bruno Latour work in a laboratory?
Answer: Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar.
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: What was Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts about?
Answer: This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Aside from explaining Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts, are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
Answer: In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method,
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: How was Latour's work received?
Answer: Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals.
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Who gave rebuttals to Latour's position and findings?
Answer: Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts:
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Did Latour have a comeback for Gross and Leavitt's rebuttals?
Answer: CANNOTANSWER
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Was there anyone else who had a rebuttal against Bruno Latour's work?
Answer: philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results."
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Aside from the idea that typical experiments produce only inconclusive data, what other things did Latour discover with his works in the laboratory?
Answer: a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out.
Bruno Latour

Context: After his early career efforts, Latour shifted his research interests to focus on laboratory scientists. Latour rose in importance following the 1979 publication of Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts with co-author Steve Woolgar. In the book, the authors undertake an ethnographic study of a neuroendocrinology research laboratory at the Salk Institute. This early work argued that naive descriptions of the scientific method, in which theories stand or fall on the outcome of a single experiment, are inconsistent with actual laboratory practice.  In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. Latour and Woolgar argued that, for untrained observers, the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy.  Latour and Woolgar produced a highly heterodox and controversial picture of the sciences. Drawing on the work of Gaston Bachelard, they advance the notion that the objects of scientific study are socially constructed within the laboratory--that they cannot be attributed with an existence outside of the instruments that measure them and the minds that interpret them. They view scientific activity as a system of beliefs, oral traditions and culturally specific practices-- in short, science is reconstructed not as a procedure or as a set of principles but as a culture. Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge in which he famously wrote his Second Principle as follows: "Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favor."  Some of Latour's position and findings in this era provoked vehement rebuttals. Gross and Leavitt argue that Latour's position becomes absurd when applied to non-scientific contexts: e.g., if a group of coworkers in a windowless room were debating whether or not it were raining outside and went outdoors to discover raindrops in the air and puddles on the soil, Latour's hypothesis would assert that the rain was socially constructed. Similarly, philosopher John Searle argues that Latour's "extreme social constructivist" position is seriously flawed on several points, and furthermore has inadvertently "comical results." CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides Latour's work Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts, did Latour have any other publications?
Answer: Latour's 1987 book Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society is one of the key texts of the sociology of scientific knowledge
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Was chapter 94 eventful in The Vicomte of Bragelonne?
Answer: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV.
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: How does The Vicomte of Bragelonne progress from the romantic events to chapter 180?
Answer: Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her.
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Does Raoul get married?
Answer: The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What do Louise and Raoul do during the delay?
Answer: the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Is Louis successful in asking Fouquet for money?
Answer: during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends,
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: What happens after the king overhears Louise confess her attraction?
Answer: That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair.
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Do Guiche and Raoul get caught?
Answer: Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.
The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later

Context: This part mostly concerns romantic events at the court of Louis XIV. Raoul de Bragelonne finds his childhood sweetheart, Louise de La Valliere, is maid of honour to the Princess. Fearing a tarnishing of Louise's reputation by affairs at court, Raoul seeks to marry her. His father, Athos, the Comte de la Fere, disapproves, but eventually, out of love for his son, reluctantly agrees. The king, however, refuses to sanction the marriage because Louise is of inferior social status, and so marriage is delayed.  Meanwhile, the struggle for power begins between Fouquet and Colbert. Louis attempts to impoverish Fouquet by asking for money to pay for a grand fete at Fontainebleau. Meanwhile, Aramis meets the governor of the Bastille M. de Baisemeaux, and learns of a secret prisoner who bears a striking resemblance to Louis XIV. Aramis uses this secret to persuade the dying general of the Jesuits to name him his successor.  After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta, as soon does Louis XIV. To avoid her new husband being jealous Henrietta suggests that the king choose a young lady at court to act as a smokescreen for their flirtation. They select Louise de la Valliere for this part, but during the fete, the king overhears Louise confess her attraction for him to friends, and promptly forgets his affection for Henrietta. That same night Henrietta hears de Guiche confess his love for her to Raoul. The two pursue their own love affair. Aware of Louise's attachment, the king sends Raoul to England indefinitely as a diplomatic envoy.  Rumours of the king's love affair cause friction with de Wardes, who has inherited from his father a hatred of d'Artagnan and all those associated with him. De Guiche is forced to fight a duel with him and is defeated and seriously wounded. The incident is the last straw for Madame Henrietta who resolves to dismiss Louise from her service as Maid of Honour. The king dissuades Henrietta, but she prevents the king from seeing Louise. The king circumvents Henrietta, and so she contacts her brother King Charles II, imploring him to eject Raoul from England. On his return to France, Raoul is heartbroken to discover Louise in the arms of the king.  Athos finds out everything and spits his contempt at Louis XIV. The young King orders Athos's imprisonment, but D'Artagnan convinces him to release him. CANNOTANSWER

Question: Besides the love affair, are there any other interesting aspects about The Vicomte of Bragelonne?
Answer: After Buckingham leaves France, the Comte de Guiche grows besotted with Henrietta,