Talk:Gargantua and Pantagruel

message: at time of writing, no "shit" is found in the article
Untitled50reg (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [Resolved] Untitled

message: at time of writing, no "shit" is found in the article
Untitled50reg (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Resolved] "Shit" 

message: The Bakhtin analysis on this page does absolutely nothing to give the reader a sense of the common interpretation of Rabelais's novels.  Instead, it's an exhaustingly dry and very specific discussion that appears to have much more to do with Bakhtin's theories than with the works that are the topic of the entry.  It should either be removed or put into a context that clarifies its relevance.
:I agree with this. Analysis of other interpreters is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, but I don't see the need to keep it around either. It's such an abstract analysis that it belongs in a dissertation, not an encyclopedic article. The information people go seeking for in an encyclopedia should be much more general than that.Maxamodos (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Bakhtinian analysis is quite integral to Bakhtin's theories, and his analysis of this work is a large part of his definition of the carnivalesque. I definitely agree that his take shouldn't be the only one, and also that the current treatment is far too theoretical for this article. I'd like to rework and move most of that section to the carnivalesque article (also a pretty weak one), then leave a simple explanation on this page. Does anyone have leads on other interpretations to diversify the section? Avram (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do go ahead and do that. The Bakhtinian section reads like psycobabble. I understand that some parts of the book satirise scholasticism. Should that be mentioned? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I also agree with this. If any one Rabelais scholar should be mentioned, that should rather be Michael Screech. I don't think that this page gives a good representation of the depth and richness of Rabelais' works, and Bakhtin's theories as mentioned here don't help.
I intend to sort this out at some point, unless someone beats me to it.
Untitled50reg (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I have changed my mind. I started reading Bakhtin's book, but do not intend to finish reading Bakhtin's book. Accordingly, I no longer intend to sort out this Bakhtin-bit (which is basically just copied and pasted from that book's article).
Untitled50reg (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bakhtin "Analysis" 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: rendered him a "polyglot"; went to source, and rendered "great number" of words
Untitled50reg (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Resolved] "one of the first Frenchmen to learn Ancient Greek"?? 

message: This book has been recommended to me and I think it would be very useful for people with the knowledge to include thoughts and comments on the relative merits of the many English translations available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvynadam (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the translation section, including a section of the Third Book which I thought succinctly demonstrated what different translators were doing. I included likewise translator-aims where I could. I don't currently intend to acquire any other translations, so completeness here depends on others.
Untitled50reg (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of English Translations 

message: I have removed mention of lists of vulgar insults.
Untitled50reg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Resolved] Citation needed of lists of vulgar insults 

message: emendation apparently universally accepted.
Untitled50reg (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Resolved] Mistake 

message: It seems getting an American's perspective would be more appropriate for an English speaking audience: https://archive.org/details/journeyintorabel002378mbp/page/n9/mode/2up
I didn't even realize Nock wrote on the topic until I read the preface (only 12 pages long) from LeClercq's translation. It would be helpful to have direct links to the various translations available as PDFs (Archive_org is polluted with ~50 versions of the original 17th century translations). It's also come to my attention that according to Screech, it is unlikely Rabelais wrote the fifth book given the style and substance (I have zero standing to claim either way).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.246.119 (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  American analysis, versus Russian, on the English Wikipedia entry? Albert Jay Nock