# Talk:The Elegance of the Hedgehog

Afaik, philosophy is a high school subject in France so if the student is in high school, it would be "teacher". As far as subject + teacher goes, they go together if a student regards someone as their teacher for a subject (Oh, he's my philosophy teacher.) and the French may classify them differently – do we know they don't/do have specialist teachers? In French "professeur" means teacher, and "Professor" is the same, which makes it confusing, so it might be better to stick with the English translation without putting a gloss on it, or ask at the language reference desk[1]. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the ideal is to make the point as unambiguously as possible to the audience. I agree with your analysis of how the French use the terms, but I don't think our average reader will be familiar with it. To an Anglophone reader, the referent "philosophy professor" unambiguously denotes a university lecturer in philosophy, which would lend Barbery a lot more weight than "high school philosophy teacher" would. the skomorokh 12:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not clear, sorry. Does that mean she is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of something, then? or is she just a lecturer and high school philosophy teacher. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Classism
Just out of interest – note that the novel came out a year after the migrant riots in the burbs of Paris which could form a backdrop to the issues explored in the novel if you can find a reference/review that takes this up. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. We'll try to look for that; nice for the FA. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Efe, the article is looking good. Thought I might ask why the book jacket image is so big (I notice most novel pages have it at 200px or so). Another thought is, was there ever a "Plot" section? Usually plot introduction is a quick roundup and then "Plot" covers the story trajectory in more (though not too much) detail. May your GA goal come true soon, best wishes – Julia Rossi (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I'll fix it. Someone has change the pixel size to the infobox's default setting. I haven't read the novel so I can't write a plot myself; I need to search for an online source. --Efe (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Efe, I wrongly assumed the book was in your hands. No biggy. Will keep an eye out for it too,  Julia Rossi (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Aha, google here[2] gets you the riot connection. The 2005 riots were the worst since May 68 student riots which also involved the class distinction/privilege/education thing. I've a feeling I saw where she comments about the context so it could still be out there somewhere.  Julia Rossi (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Julia, the idea of using the riots as a backdrop is interesting, and I agree that adding social context would benefit the article, but do not think that unless there is a reliable source linking the issues to the novel, anything we write would be original synthesis? the skomorokh 12:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Skomorokh, I would only recommend adding the social context if there is a reference, if a reviewer put it together for instance. For example, the novel Leviathan was in some way connected to the Unabomber, and reviewer spoke of it, so I put it in[3] with a reference. It helps contextualise the work legitimately, but as you say simply putting two and two together would be OR. Re Elegance, one of the keys is the sociology slant of the novel, and of the riots themselves, and sociology is very big in the French psyche since May 68, placing philosophy, philosophers and sociologists like Pierre Bourdieu in the public mind. Clued culturally, the French would probably get more out of this novel's subtext than English-speaking readers.  Julia Rossi (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is normal to set 200px for book cover images to ensure reasonable conformity of sizing. If there are other issues you are trying to assert please indicate clearly what they are (ideally non-technically) so we can understand what point you are trying to make. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, most novel-related pics are set to 200px. Thanks for changing it yourself. --Efe (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Adherence to the Manual of Style is part of the GA criteria, which is why I made the edit. From MOS:QUOTE MOS:IMAGE:

* You should generally use the thumbnail option ("thumb") available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences. As a rule images should not be forced to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the default). Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors.  Examples of images where size forcing may be appropriate include:
Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image subject(s)
Detailed maps, diagrams or charts
Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image
Images containing a lot of detail, or where the detail is important to the article
Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300px.

This, to me is unambiguous; there is no policy-based justification for specifying a image resolution lower than 300px, because it restricts the readers choice (although when the image itself is of a lower resolution than the infobox default, size should be specified so that it is not stretched). The previous version may have seemed oversized because the original upload was too large for fair use purposes (i.e. greater than 300x300px), and I had tagged it with {{reduce}}. If "most novel-related pics are set to 200px", then they seem to be out of line with the manual of style. If there is a good reason for this, I suggest altering the default size of {{Infobox Book}}, but I suspect there is not. the skomorokh 12:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the section you quote from is MOS:IMAGE and I think the key here is you left out the "infobox" element - which admittedly says extremely little. This is key here as it sizes the whole infobox when you let the image it contains default. I take your point about the infobox having a default size element (which it currently doesn't - perhaps it should). It has been common practice for over three years to limit the max size of cover images in book infoboxes to 200px so what you propose is taking a general image statement and making it apply to specific use in infoboxes - book ones in particular. This needs more discussion examination etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, participating in too many parallel discussions; perhaps this is the wrong forum. I support having a default image size in infoboxes, but not less than 300px as that deprives readers who set their preferred image size to 300px (the maximum) of high res images. The default ought to be "thumb", which allows everyone to see the size they wish. the skomorokh 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Debate copied verbatim to the talk page of the Book infobox. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, see you there. the skomorokh 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


### Hello-o ?
As I don't know how to find where it's gone, I'm just putting two bits here in that the size limit chosen originally may have something to do with copyright conditions on a book's fair use image status. If it's available in larger formats, wouldn't it be more reproducible with more risk that it would be?  Julia Rossi (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, about the caption for the book cover image – is it the first edition of the English translation? If it is then the caption needs changing to state that, or whatever edition cover it is. Cheers,  Julia Rossi (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have found it, I believe.--Efe (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, if you wanted another pic, if the first edition English cover could go in somewhere, but not sure of novel page conventions on that. By the way Efe, your google-fu's in fine fitness! Julia Rossi (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think including two non-free images would have a hard time meeting the non-free content criteria, but I'm not sure whether first edition (French) beats first edition of the English translation for an English language article. the skomorokh 22:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Maybe Kevinalewis could best help with that one. Meanwhile I'll look around,  Julia Rossi (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, putting it here first because don't want to disconcert the work going on under GA requirements, but suggest putting the Publications section after Reception and criticism to link the last two more with the writing/content etc of the book. "Publications" appears to be less riveting stuff. If no-one objects, I'm happy to do that.  Julia Rossi (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I think the sequence is OK now. Of course, the publication comes first? --Efe (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In chronological sequence, but most of this publication material is about the flow-on and is external to the literary stuff. (my view though) I personally would keep the book stuff central and the publication details peripheral.
Btw I started another bit that was (econ) for your comments, please:

comment
re-wording 
a) suggest changing "the autodidact concierge Renée Michel, whose concealed literary intelligence is discovered by a suicidal but precocious girl" to
the intellectual concierge Renée Michel, whose concealed literary intelligence is discovered by an unstable but precocious girl
– because "autodidact" is not an accessible encyclopedic word for the intro; it comes from the french: autodidacte which comes from the Latin. The English sense is that a person is "intellectual" because they think, learn and discover (it's not about being an academic); and "suicidal" sounds a bit intense and needs a context so early in the article – but is developed later – so I suggest "unstable".  Julia Rossi (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

b) This bit "but whiles away to read works" in the plot intro seems awkward, does it mean she "whiles away the time by reading works ..." or does she "hide" away to read these works?
Correct. I removed "the time". --Efe (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PS I'm happy to change stuff to make sense, but because it's your baby right now, I'm bringing it here first. Just say if it's not helpful,  Julia Rossi (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Like the idea but any other word than unstable? Seems general, though. I am looking for a word like nearer to suicidal. --Efe (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry the servers are so busy I can't get on easily – "unstable" means mentally unstable and liable to psychiatric problems. "Suicidal" means making many attempts to kill oneself. Does she do this repeatedly or just plan to eventually? Using unstable early can be okay when you bring it right out in body of the article. Repeating it too often isn't good prose though.
Havat the Characters section, new broom copy ed there. Something I pick up throughout is that being faithful to reviews that copy each other pretty much, and it being a french novel, is that when writing an article about it, it seeps into your own English and it can get stilted and . That's what I'm try to smooth out if that's okay. Will sign off soon, late here in oz. But will look in in the a.m. Leave any jobs here if you like. Best, Julia 11:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

to make it easier to come in quicker: "surprisingly" is there because it's another way of saying there's a contrast between her mind and her job without stating it the same way over and again. I"ve been trying to relieve the repetition and lift oops, vary, the cadence of the prose, but don't want to get in the way. Anyway, will leave it with you and wish you well. Good wishes,  Julia Rossi (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Efe, giving reasons, I'm putting stuff here that might help you understand why even some hard quotes need to be paraphrased.

Plot and Character sections
still dont like "cross each other" in English this phrase usually means "upset each other"; prefer "cross paths" but didn't change it because you changed it back already and feel if it's going to flow, you'll be the one to change it again;
I have rearranged some sentences so they don't read too baldly (The person did this and this and this) or occur too often that way; or to avoid the same beginning turning up over and over.
Sometimes there are too many words being used to say something that's more naturally expressed in one or two, so have changed a couple of those and where the qualifying description is coming up too often (as in characters section). Though it's an encyclopedia, in any writing it's best not to become impressed by the gospel-words of reviewers – they can be overblown and I'm finding some are inconsistent even within their own articles. Remember some of them are quite carried away and seem to be selling the book.
(dropping out for awhile now, have to get someone's book off to publisher and will be back later.) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I realized, too, after the review that it would be good to avoid quotations, except the review section. There are some phrases that seem not suitable for an encyclopedia, but don't know yet how to fix them. Thanks, Julia. --Efe (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Anything in particular? Leave a note for me to look at anything... Julia Rossi (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
None as of now. But when I'm doing it again, it means I have hard time rephrasing it myself. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
When it happens again, post me an example. <hey, it's hard work elbowing my way past all these GA bouquets> : )  Julia Rossi (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article I deleted "and she plans to upset her family by burning down the apartment before dying"  I only recently read past that part where she explains her motivations, but it seemed quite clear to me that she was burning the building to cover up and disguise her suicidal actions, not add to them. She wanted to NOT upset her family (or at least upset them less!) by having her body burn in the apartment building, so it would appear she perished in the fire, not through deliberate suicide.  She also adds that she would do this while everyone is away: "I'm not a murderer" she explains.  Unless later in the book her plans change?  Although there are several lines where she explains how both the futility of life and suicide as a solution are both too upsetting for other people. She is not angry or hostile, but disdainful of members of her family. So it seems unlikely.  But as I haven't finished the book, I don't want to add any explanation yet of how a fire would disguise her suicide. Anyone have other thoughts? Tumacama (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this was deliberate? I can't find any interview or other source where the author says so. It could be a coincidence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosechapel (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)