Talk:The Man Who Laughs

message: Should the synopsis be this biased? It is not the place of a synopsis to inform the readers that the exposition is "clumsy", etc.
No, it should not - if you ever see anything that violates WP:NPOV either delete it or rephrase it to make it nonbiased. -- Gizzakk 06:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’d also question the assertion: “Although among Hugo's most obscure works…” On what basis is such a statement made…? It certainly is remembered today, if only for the film adaptation, and by association, the development of the look of The Joker. Perhaps it wasn’t successful in Hugo’s day, or was a comparative failure compared to the success/ sales of his other works - I don’t know, but as it stands it sounds un-encyclopædic to me… 86.136.164.71 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: I thought the film version was made in 1928 not 1927 as the article says. Does anyone else know? 71.76.136.149 04:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film Date 

message: I have something of a problem with comparing the Joker to Hannibal Lecter, but am hesitant to simply delete the comment out of hand.  Other than the level of amoral genius both characters have, I don't really see any resemblance.  If there's any agreement with my reservation, then I'll happily put my name on the edit. 
Corgi 06:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration for the Joker, side comment 

message: This article has to be one of the most biased on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for a book review, and some of the "facts" listed in the summary were simply wrong. This part was particularly amusing:
"Although there are passages of great power in The Man Who Laughs, there are also long passages of excess verbiage and barely relevant asides, with poorly-realised subsidiary characters who ultimately have no relevance to the plot. Among the novel's major weaknesses is the very poor definition of the main female character, Dea. Whatever Hugo's intentions may have been, Dea is a collection of frailties rather than a person. In the firm tradition of Little Nell (from Charles Dickens's The Old Curiosity Shop), Little Eva (from Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin) and Beth March (from Louisa May Alcott's Little Women), Dea is one of those waif-like Victorian ingenues who seem to exist for the sole purpose of having a climactic death scene."
It is also wrong. I did an extensive clean-up on this article. LaszloWalrus 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminated enormous bias 

message: The external "litrix.com" link is failing for me, currently. Would there be any problems with linking to the novel's entry on "Project Gutenburg"? 'Kash 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: :Image:VictorHugo TheManWhoLaughs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:VictorHugo TheManWhoLaughs.jpg

message: There have been two removals of identical text from someone whose only contribution to Wikipedia is this paragraph. I figured I would open discussion here. The only reference I can find to the book is the XLibris entry. There are no reviews, no commentaries, just a place to buy the book. I'm not one to impose rigorous demands of notability, but is there anything to this book other than a sales pitch? We're not trying to be unreasonable here, but there need to be some standards. -Fuzzy (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is written as an ad for a self-published abridged version -- i.e., a vanity press book. This is an ad. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Pulliam abridgement 

message: It would be great if we could also have a brief synopsis (3 sentences) in addition to the fairly long plot summary.  Thanks, Maikel (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No article needs both a "brief synopsis" and a plot summary.  This article's plot summary is more than twice the size allowed by WP policy, and must be severely truncated. It contains a ridiculous amount of detail, and does not paint a clear picture of the novel's plot. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: The unsourced paragraph under "Allusions" about Jerzy Kosinski's Pinball is almost certainly false.  "After Kosinski's death, it was determined that at least two uncredited “ghost writers” made substantial contributions to this novel and other works credited to Kosinski"— this is an inaccurate description of the case that was made during Kosinski's life (and which may have contributed to his suicide) that he was not the sole author of his works, which dates back to the early 1980s.  Despite being made in various forms over the years, there has never been a definitive answer on this subject and the claim that two other authors have been definitively credited with his work is simply false.  Furthermore, the author mentioned, F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre, though a writer of some small renown, was also a known hoaxer and fabulist who almost certainly invented the claim that he was one of Kosinski's ghost writers, based simply on the coincidence of the name Gwynplaine being used in the book.  (Surely Kosinski's editors would not allow such an obvious clue to be slipped in by one of the secret ghost-writers!)Mgmax (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable false information about F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre 

message: What's the history of the alleged "By Order of the King" title? I also find "By The King's Command"; what's the relevant French title? (I'm confused by this.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  By Order of the King 

message: The book is also referenced in Dostoyevski's novel "Demons".
"вот тут на столе, под книгой, под «L’homme qui rit».[50] Какое мне дело, что она убивается о Ни-ко-леньке!"
Something like <<here, on the table, under the "L’homme qui rit".>> - cannot translate correctly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.245 (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dostoyevsky 

message: "After leaving France, Hugo lived in Brussels briefly in 1851, before moving to the Channel Islands, first to Jersey (1852–1855) and then to the smaller island of Guernsey in 1855, where he stayed until 1870."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.28.55 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I edited, according to the wiki article about Victor Hugo 

message: I've noticed some details in the plot summary that are not mentioned in the book:
'By touching his face, Dea concludes that Gwynplaine is perpetually happy';
'Gwynplaine keeps the lower half of his face concealed';
and two more that contravene the book:
'Ursus is initially horrified, then moved to pity, and he takes them in'. Ursus adopts Gwynplaine and Dea first, and in the morning only he makes out that Gwynplaine is disfigured;
'A flashback relates the doctor's story'. There are no such flashback!
So, could anybody explain me where these details were found and why they are still not removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.32.66.177 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot oddities