Talk:Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century

Translator's note

I translated this list because of its strange combination, from an English-speaking reader's perspective, of the commonplace and the obscure.

The introductory section states one author's opinion that the list suffers from Francocentrisme. It is true that there are a number of French works on the list, but at the same time, it includes many titles that the French in particular enjoy, such as American and British pulp thrillers. I feel that author is overcritical.

I have begun with a literal translation, the way we used to do it in Latin class. I agree that the French phrasing is still a little awkward.
Varlaam (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC) (in Toronto)

The article starts:

"The 100 Books of the Century is a grading of the books considered as the hundred best of the 20th century."

- Three problems:

a) 'considered as' is unnatural - I suggest merely 'considered' or 'considered to be'.

b) A 'grading' is... odd. Surely it's a list. A grading suggests grades are awarded or the works are categorised at belonging to different levels; neither is true.

c) Assuming the question respondents replied to is accurately translated, this ISN'T a list of 'best books', it's a list of 'most memorable' books - a quite, quite different thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.67.13.223 (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I or did I not say "a literal translation, the way we used to do it in Latin class"? Back in 1975.

I translated the French original as it is/was 2 years ago.

I did not put my own spin or interpretation on it.

You are welcome to go back to the French newspaper articles and look at how they approached this issue.

Varlaam (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Brontë

I am amazed by this book list. Where are the BRONTE sisters books here? they have written some of the best books in English language (or any language) without a shadow of a doubt.Kitapkurusu (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The list is limited to the 20th century; the Brontes pre-date that period. 07:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The only 19th c. book on the list is War of the Worlds.

I am not sure of the precise reason for that, but I suspect that the French translation of it did not appear until the 20th century.

Varlaam (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What, me quibble?

Savigneau's statement has nothing to do with quibbling: it contextualizes the sometimes surprising choices included in this list made by the general public. As a professional who has lived in Paris for the past thirty years, I know firsthand 1) that the majority of Parisians do not consider Joyce’s Ulysses (an example among several in the list) as a popular novel, and 2) that Hergé's The Blue Lotus is a highly successful and popular comic book, ahem, graphic novel. The list is therefore comprised of "the commonplace and the obscure" and not exclusively of the popular - in which case using the phrase "popular comic books" is perfectly acceptable. --Jumbolino (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(I don't watch my watchlist, and perhaps you will not either once you have reached 60K edits across hundreds of projects.)

I am a professional as well, who has visited Paris thrice in the past thirty years, and actually enjoyed driving around Étoile, although I cannot speak for my passengers.

I laugh at the first 5 pages of Ulysses each and every time I take another crack at it. I enjoyed The Blue Lotus when I read it a decade ago, possibly in French — I don't recall.

Your "popular" phrasing is OR. That is your personal observation. WP, for better or worse, probably better, hates page authors incorporating personal observations. I have the battle scars to prove it. I got blocked for a bloody year once by an admin bastard who himself was a POV pusher. Even the word "author" is taboo around here. I used to be a big wheel at the IMDb, and this place is an anarchic madhouse in comparison.

It's like Charlton Heston shouting, "It's a madhouse!... a madhouse!", as he did on our bubblegum cards in the 1960s.

But it has its rules.

We are not here to analyse or editorialize extemporaneously.

I have translated this table 30 different times. Arabic, Farsi. Not Urdu, because there is not enough data. Russian, Bulgarian, et cetera. Georgian — I had to learn that script to do that page. I don't claim to understand the list either.

I would hazard a guess that the intellectuals proposed a list, and Parisians dutifully did as they were instructed, like policemen in Vichy.

"Ours not to reason why."

Accept it; discard it. I personally appreciate being made aware of things of which I had been blissfully incognizant until that moment.

Varlaam (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) (Toronto)

Thanks for your absurd reply, Varlaam, which I enjoyed reading. I don't at all agree that my describing Hergé's The Blue Lotus as "popular" is OR (not all of Hergé's work is popular). But your scrambling for any old excuse while making POV edits contribute to a Wikipediesque good time. Blocked for a year, eh? I also would have translated the list illico presto into English. Since the list is fun and unimportant, do please continue editing the article in any jolly, contradictory way you like. Bravo, happy bullying, and bye-bye the five pillars. --Jumbolino (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sentimental vs critical list

Re: last edit reverted by Vaarlam. This is POV and if the list had any genuine importance, I'd revert using Wiki's NPOV. Yourcenar's work is both acclaimed and popular in France and therefore not at all surprising to find it listed. Without showing any proof, Vaarlam assumes that Savigneau has a vested interest in including Yourcenar - but it's a list compiled by the general public. Vaarlam writes: "She is dismissive, when, as a biographer, an interested party, she should be stressing the list's major importance." This is nonsense and an assumption made by Vaarlam: there are no sources whatsoever in the article that defend the list as critically important. In addition, Vaarlam can't read French: not only is Savigneau a lit crit for Le Monde and in step with its editorial line but she is in favour of the list while explaining the conditions under which it was compiled: a non-academic, game-like approach in which comic books by Hergé and Franquin are ranked higher by the general public than novels by Joyce or Lowry. While this is hardly surprising and refreshingly unstuffy, it collapses the theory that it's a list of critical importance: as Savigneau observes, it is one based on sentimental choices made by the general public. Accordingly, I cannot find references that defend it as anything other than a guide to the literary tastes of the French reading public in 1999. For my part, I have provided a verifiable reference (Savigneau’s Le Monde article) that, in good faith, relativizes its importance. Quoi qu'il en soit, I will leave Vaarlam to his contradictions as, honestly, I couldn't be bothered for so little. --Jumbolino (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

I do read French.

You are the guy who said she was dismissive of the list, not me.

All I ever did was translate the leading paragraphs from French WP. I have never read Savigneau's article. Why would I?

Why are you adopting this superior tone? This "I live in France" so everyone else ...

I've known who Yourcenar is for ... decades?

My "contradictions"? There are none. I translated a book list from French Wikipedia.

It is that simple. You are the one who wants to be argumentative, not me.

Varlaam (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Country"

The information in the "Country" column looks highly problematic and probably runs afoul of WP:OR. Not having access to the original article, I can't say if this information was included, but I doubt it. The article lists the country of Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad as "Russian Empire"? and The Lord of the Rings as Orange Free State? This is fun and all, but if it wasn't in the source article, it doesn't belong here. — goethean ॐ 21:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? Varlaam (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a statement. You've done some absurd things in this article which need to be corrected. Tolkein is not a Dutch author, and Conrad is not a Russian. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Am in total agreement with goethean concerning various author-country attributions. --Jumbolino (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

[1]I stand corrected. User:Varlaam didn't add the 'country' column. — goethean ॐ 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the 'country' column is going to use small text to indicate country of birth, it needs to be stated. As it stands now, it's unclear what the small size means. Of course, it would be better just to say "Born modern-day Poland, active USA," in the case of Conrad, rather than have an ambiguous Russian Empire in there.Tdimhcs (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty fucking sick of this fucking column.

I did not create it. It is not in the French and Dutch versions I started with.

A guy from Taiwan added it.

I personally have no problem with it, so I left it in place.

Since then, all people ever seem to do with this page is fucking whine and gripe and bitch and kvetch like a bunch of infants about the stupid Country column. Like, who really gives a shit? Fuck. This page is not a political page. It is about literature. At least it was when I wrote the bloody thing.

I am happy just to blow the fucking column away.

Varlaam (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC) (translator)

The reason I wrote this page was so that people would have something good to read to look for in their public library catalogues.

The page is not about the border lines in Eastern Europe when Joseph Conrad was born. My own grandfather was born in Galizien in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was Ukrainian. If he were in this table, he would appear as "Austro-Hungary" in order to avoid pointless arguments about his original nationality, when back in the real world, he was a British subject and Canadian citizen who spoke English.

My grandfather would be Austro-Hungary, Canada, since his "Austrian" origin did not have anything to do with his personal or professional life.

Varlaam (talk)

Language

Waiting for Godot was, according to its wikipedia page, first published in French, but the author translated it in English. Then should we write "French/English", "English" or "French" in the language column? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazaret (talk • contribs) 14:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Furor and Mystery

Seems noteworthy in a way that there is a book on this list that doesn't even have an English Wikipedia page. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fureur_et_Myst%C3%A8re 213.180.0.3 (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)