This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day and we couldn't agree as to the meaning of Candide's last words: "That's all very well, but let us cultivate our garden." I argued that Voltaire meant it metaphorically (as in "interior cultivation"; personal growth), while my friend supported that it was meant literally (as in mind your own business). Who is right after all? Or perhaps it was meant as both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Individual ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 February 2005 (UTC)
I think it has more to do with knowing one's limitations and doing one's utmost from within them to keep one's corner of the world green and growing. At the end of the novel Candide has wasted his life pursuing a woman who has become bitter and haggard, a shadow of the girl he has suffered so much for. He does not mind; he tends his garden. By this point Voltaire has all but abandoned idealism, as any scene outside El Dorado can attest. What good in the world we can do, we muddily must, but mind the garden gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.34 ( talk) 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
---
SparkNotes.com has its own take on The Garden in their Themes, Motifs, and Symbols section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.136.87 ( talk) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more should be said about Voltaire and his intent in context to writing the novel. Mike 7 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ---
Personally, I was always sort of depressed by the very narrow explanations supplied for that quotation. Perhaps the most important line in the book - it directly contrasts the "new" Candide's philosophy with that of the "old" Candide (and therefore also that of Pangloss). Previously he was given to questioning the sufficient reasons for things; that is, the "why." The problem with this viewpoint is two-fold: (1) it doesn't necessitate action and (2) the actual existence of an answer to the question of "why?" may not even exist (a more comedic instance of this occuring with a child's continuous asking). The last line dealt instead with the necessary condition, which can often be related to the question of "how." This attitude is future-seeking, requiring action as a means. Any explanation which illustrates this contrast should, I feel, be considered valid. Of course, it should only be taken as a necessary condition for an interesting paper; I mention it here mostly because many readers seem to not understand logic when they read Voltaire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Anabre~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
---
I believe the last line can be paraphrased thus:
"We've spent this whole book wandering through misery to figure out how to be happy, so let's shut up and get on with it now that we've got it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patoplague ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
---
I think you could also view it as Candide's final realization of the imperfection of the world-that it is not the best of all possible worlds,and so must be cultivated. Thus playing off the image of the garden of eden, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.41.2 ( talk) 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
--- The garden is simply the work that occupies their time and does not allow them to philosophize. Voltaire is agruing that philosophy is the downfall of human ambition and happiness. Simply living is the only simple way to live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.126.236 ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't the novel (slightly) influenced by the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake? There's a mention in that article. -- Madchester 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is mentioned in the afterword of my version of the book also. (see my remarks below for the ISBN number) 85.2.195.227 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The mentioned "second" book where Candide leaves the garden was not written by Voltaire himself, but by someone else. So it's not really a sequel. This is mentioned in the afterword of this book: (reputable german version) "Candid; Voltaire", Reclam Verlag, ISBN-13: 978-3-15-006549-5 or ISBN-10: 3-15-006549-6. Another thing to mention is that Voltaire released a slightly edited version a few years after. (this was because the book was publicly burnt in march 1759 just after it was released in january 1759). The title is "Candide, with the additions which were found in the pocket of the doctor, when he died in 1759 in Minden." 85.2.195.227 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
not true that name is the publisher's, the book is very obscure and is only in German but it is written by Voltaire
--
Yev900 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you pronounce Candide? I've asked several people and received just as many guesses. Scott 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The statement about Voltaire being a racist towards blacks is outrageous! How can that person have come to that conclusion, when Voltaire depicted the cruelty and injustice that blacks had to endure during his time? I don't know if the source is true, but it doesn't argue why; therefore, I say that the entire text should be deleted. In fact, a Steward should come in and delete the entire history where that fragment was added to the article so that it will forever be gone from the article. -- Thus Spake Anittas 11:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Voltaire even brought the subject up in his Essay on the Manner and Spirit of Nations and on the Principal Occurrences in History in 1756 (which was an early work of comparative history), although Voltaire made no attempt to solve the problem.
He was a bit curious on the subject. No crime in that. There is no proof that he believed something which that woman seems to want to make it to be. Also, even if someone was to believe that some of these so-called races (I diagree with the usage of that term) has certain attributes that are stronger than the atributes of other so-called races, that would not mean the person is racist, if the belief is proven. What if one day it is proven right that Asians, in general, are a bit more intelligent than the rest of us? Would it make those who believe in that fact racist? I don't think so. It is the perception that counts. It is you perceive a group of people and I see no indication that Voltaire perceived the blacks or any other group in a negative light. On the contrary, he focused on the cruelty and injustice that they had to endure! -- Thus Spake Anittas 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
She argues that in Candide, Voltaire portrays blacks as inferior to whites; but she states he does not attempt to prove this in the novella
I hope you guys are happy now, because someone added that info to the article. Enjoy your victory. -- Thus Spake Anittas 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Shouldn't the title be Candide, or Optimism?
2. The link to Leonardo Sciascia leads to an author from our modern age. -- Thus Spake Anittas 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, various anonymous Internet people for you contributions: this article is much better now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.174.125 ( talk • contribs)
This article needs to be expanded and copy edited. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
If you have any questions regarding this review, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 08:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I did the lead. One thing, though—the infobox has Part 2 as a "followed by". Voltaire didn't write that. I'd like to remove it. -- Milkbreath 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Manuscripts: Where is the La Vallière Manuscript now? -- Milkbreath 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Illustrations: I'm confused. He drew "two sets" in 1787. One set of four made it into a book that year. How can there be an 1803 "version" in a book from 1819? -- Milkbreath 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Legacy: Nowhere does it say that it's really effing funny. Not "Oh my, isn't that droll" funny as you take a pinch of snuff, but laugh-till-you-cry funny. Modern funny. (Just kidding, though that reveals Voltaire's genius more than anything else about Candide, I think—that he can make me laugh like an idiot 250 years later.) And, just between you and me, Bottiglia is full of crap. It's guys like him who never give the Oscar to a comedy. -- Milkbreath 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Candido: I couldn't figure out what "Einaudi" was doing there. The link took me nowhere that made sense in the sentence, so I commented it out. -- Milkbreath 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Boy, you're all over this. I was kidding about mentioning how funny it is, but I think it's appropriate to, although the relative funniness of anything is strictly opinion. -- Milkbreath 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone sort out a couple of problems in the Legacy section? Half the wikilinks to authors wind up at DAB pages... which Vonnegut, for example? The other thing in there I think needs sorting is the external links included a couple of times - for the most part, the article is very well referenced, and those two external links in the prose just stand out like sore thumbs. (Came here as a result of seeing the GA nom - I'm not doing the review, but I spotted these couple of things, and think they should be fixed... the section kinda lets down the article, like it fizzled out at the end). Thanks. Carre 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading and re-reading this page all day, trying to decide how to proceed. After some careful and frustrating consideration, I have to issue another GA fail assessment. I know this is annoying to those folks who have worked so hard on the page; the improvements since the last GA nomination are impressive. However, there are still a number of important deficits which prevent me from passing it.
As a high school English teacher, I think of many things in terms of American-style letter grades; this article is currently a B-, where F is a stub, B is a Good Article, and A+ is a Featured Article. Right now this piece is just shy of a GA pass, for the following reasons:
A summary of the WP:WIAGA elements:
Because I feel like I should give more specific feedback – and because of my absurdly overwhelming sense of duty (and because I think this is an important page which has great information and really should be a GA) – I'm willing to do a more comprehensive review (probably starting tomorrow), with the goal of fixing the items mentioned here and in the previous GA review. Again, it's a fine piece of work which is just barely outside GA territory. I look forward to helping it reach that noble terrain. – Scartol · Talk 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand ready to do a complete rewrite, but I'll probably need a guide. I'll wait and see what Scartol has for us and then jump in. -- Milkbreath 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's get down to cases. Let me start by saying again that I really enjoy this article, and it's rekindled my love for the book. I'll make small edits as I read, but items I'm not sure about (and which I'll leave to others to decide) will be posed here as questions. I'll try to structure comments according to where they appear in the article. I apologize in advance if I pick nits too minutely. It goes without saying that what follows is my opinion, and that others are free to disagree (even if they're wrong (grin)).
Obviously there are variations; I think The Lord of the Rings can serve as a good model here. My recommendation for the structure here would be to change "Publication" to "Creation", with only two sub-headers: "Writing" and "Publication". "Reception" can be postponed into "Criticism/Reception"; "Manuscripts" and "Illustrations" can be merged into "Publication".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartol ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It will be easier (and more productive) for me to comment on each section after the above structural elements are moved around. So if you're willing, please go ahead and make those changes (or tell me why you disagree and explain what to do instead) and we'll take it from there.
Thanks to everyone involved. More to come. I hope this is useful. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Good luck with this project! –
Scartol ·
Talk 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am so sorry to have to fail this article again, especially after so much work has obviously gone into it. However, there are just too many things that still need explaining and too much copy editing that needs to be done for me to pass it at this time. I would say that those are the two biggest issues with the article at present:
However, I also feel that there is a third, more minor issue:
Examples where explanation is required:
I have full confidence that the editors can address these issues and resubmit the article. Feel free to contact me regarding this review on my talk page if you have any questions. Awadewit | talk 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would especially appreciate comments from editors of Candide because the title is not in English. You can direct any comments over to WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superluser t c 2007 December 23, 08:32 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day and we couldn't agree as to the meaning of Candide's last words: "That's all very well, but let us cultivate our garden." I argued that Voltaire meant it metaphorically (as in "interior cultivation"; personal growth), while my friend supported that it was meant literally (as in mind your own business). Who is right after all? Or perhaps it was meant as both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Individual ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 February 2005 (UTC)
I think it has more to do with knowing one's limitations and doing one's utmost from within them to keep one's corner of the world green and growing. At the end of the novel Candide has wasted his life pursuing a woman who has become bitter and haggard, a shadow of the girl he has suffered so much for. He does not mind; he tends his garden. By this point Voltaire has all but abandoned idealism, as any scene outside El Dorado can attest. What good in the world we can do, we muddily must, but mind the garden gate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.3.34 ( talk) 08:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
---
SparkNotes.com has its own take on The Garden in their Themes, Motifs, and Symbols section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.136.87 ( talk) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit more should be said about Voltaire and his intent in context to writing the novel. Mike 7 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC) ---
Personally, I was always sort of depressed by the very narrow explanations supplied for that quotation. Perhaps the most important line in the book - it directly contrasts the "new" Candide's philosophy with that of the "old" Candide (and therefore also that of Pangloss). Previously he was given to questioning the sufficient reasons for things; that is, the "why." The problem with this viewpoint is two-fold: (1) it doesn't necessitate action and (2) the actual existence of an answer to the question of "why?" may not even exist (a more comedic instance of this occuring with a child's continuous asking). The last line dealt instead with the necessary condition, which can often be related to the question of "how." This attitude is future-seeking, requiring action as a means. Any explanation which illustrates this contrast should, I feel, be considered valid. Of course, it should only be taken as a necessary condition for an interesting paper; I mention it here mostly because many readers seem to not understand logic when they read Voltaire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo Anabre~enwiki ( talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
---
I believe the last line can be paraphrased thus:
"We've spent this whole book wandering through misery to figure out how to be happy, so let's shut up and get on with it now that we've got it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patoplague ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
---
I think you could also view it as Candide's final realization of the imperfection of the world-that it is not the best of all possible worlds,and so must be cultivated. Thus playing off the image of the garden of eden, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.41.2 ( talk) 20:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
--- The garden is simply the work that occupies their time and does not allow them to philosophize. Voltaire is agruing that philosophy is the downfall of human ambition and happiness. Simply living is the only simple way to live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.126.236 ( talk) 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't the novel (slightly) influenced by the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake? There's a mention in that article. -- Madchester 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is mentioned in the afterword of my version of the book also. (see my remarks below for the ISBN number) 85.2.195.227 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The mentioned "second" book where Candide leaves the garden was not written by Voltaire himself, but by someone else. So it's not really a sequel. This is mentioned in the afterword of this book: (reputable german version) "Candid; Voltaire", Reclam Verlag, ISBN-13: 978-3-15-006549-5 or ISBN-10: 3-15-006549-6. Another thing to mention is that Voltaire released a slightly edited version a few years after. (this was because the book was publicly burnt in march 1759 just after it was released in january 1759). The title is "Candide, with the additions which were found in the pocket of the doctor, when he died in 1759 in Minden." 85.2.195.227 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
not true that name is the publisher's, the book is very obscure and is only in German but it is written by Voltaire
--
Yev900 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How do you pronounce Candide? I've asked several people and received just as many guesses. Scott 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The statement about Voltaire being a racist towards blacks is outrageous! How can that person have come to that conclusion, when Voltaire depicted the cruelty and injustice that blacks had to endure during his time? I don't know if the source is true, but it doesn't argue why; therefore, I say that the entire text should be deleted. In fact, a Steward should come in and delete the entire history where that fragment was added to the article so that it will forever be gone from the article. -- Thus Spake Anittas 11:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Voltaire even brought the subject up in his Essay on the Manner and Spirit of Nations and on the Principal Occurrences in History in 1756 (which was an early work of comparative history), although Voltaire made no attempt to solve the problem.
He was a bit curious on the subject. No crime in that. There is no proof that he believed something which that woman seems to want to make it to be. Also, even if someone was to believe that some of these so-called races (I diagree with the usage of that term) has certain attributes that are stronger than the atributes of other so-called races, that would not mean the person is racist, if the belief is proven. What if one day it is proven right that Asians, in general, are a bit more intelligent than the rest of us? Would it make those who believe in that fact racist? I don't think so. It is the perception that counts. It is you perceive a group of people and I see no indication that Voltaire perceived the blacks or any other group in a negative light. On the contrary, he focused on the cruelty and injustice that they had to endure! -- Thus Spake Anittas 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
She argues that in Candide, Voltaire portrays blacks as inferior to whites; but she states he does not attempt to prove this in the novella
I hope you guys are happy now, because someone added that info to the article. Enjoy your victory. -- Thus Spake Anittas 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Shouldn't the title be Candide, or Optimism?
2. The link to Leonardo Sciascia leads to an author from our modern age. -- Thus Spake Anittas 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, various anonymous Internet people for you contributions: this article is much better now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.174.125 ( talk • contribs)
This article needs to be expanded and copy edited. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
If you have any questions regarding this review, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 08:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I did the lead. One thing, though—the infobox has Part 2 as a "followed by". Voltaire didn't write that. I'd like to remove it. -- Milkbreath 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Manuscripts: Where is the La Vallière Manuscript now? -- Milkbreath 15:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Illustrations: I'm confused. He drew "two sets" in 1787. One set of four made it into a book that year. How can there be an 1803 "version" in a book from 1819? -- Milkbreath 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Legacy: Nowhere does it say that it's really effing funny. Not "Oh my, isn't that droll" funny as you take a pinch of snuff, but laugh-till-you-cry funny. Modern funny. (Just kidding, though that reveals Voltaire's genius more than anything else about Candide, I think—that he can make me laugh like an idiot 250 years later.) And, just between you and me, Bottiglia is full of crap. It's guys like him who never give the Oscar to a comedy. -- Milkbreath 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Candido: I couldn't figure out what "Einaudi" was doing there. The link took me nowhere that made sense in the sentence, so I commented it out. -- Milkbreath 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Boy, you're all over this. I was kidding about mentioning how funny it is, but I think it's appropriate to, although the relative funniness of anything is strictly opinion. -- Milkbreath 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Could someone sort out a couple of problems in the Legacy section? Half the wikilinks to authors wind up at DAB pages... which Vonnegut, for example? The other thing in there I think needs sorting is the external links included a couple of times - for the most part, the article is very well referenced, and those two external links in the prose just stand out like sore thumbs. (Came here as a result of seeing the GA nom - I'm not doing the review, but I spotted these couple of things, and think they should be fixed... the section kinda lets down the article, like it fizzled out at the end). Thanks. Carre 15:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading and re-reading this page all day, trying to decide how to proceed. After some careful and frustrating consideration, I have to issue another GA fail assessment. I know this is annoying to those folks who have worked so hard on the page; the improvements since the last GA nomination are impressive. However, there are still a number of important deficits which prevent me from passing it.
As a high school English teacher, I think of many things in terms of American-style letter grades; this article is currently a B-, where F is a stub, B is a Good Article, and A+ is a Featured Article. Right now this piece is just shy of a GA pass, for the following reasons:
A summary of the WP:WIAGA elements:
Because I feel like I should give more specific feedback – and because of my absurdly overwhelming sense of duty (and because I think this is an important page which has great information and really should be a GA) – I'm willing to do a more comprehensive review (probably starting tomorrow), with the goal of fixing the items mentioned here and in the previous GA review. Again, it's a fine piece of work which is just barely outside GA territory. I look forward to helping it reach that noble terrain. – Scartol · Talk 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand ready to do a complete rewrite, but I'll probably need a guide. I'll wait and see what Scartol has for us and then jump in. -- Milkbreath 02:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's get down to cases. Let me start by saying again that I really enjoy this article, and it's rekindled my love for the book. I'll make small edits as I read, but items I'm not sure about (and which I'll leave to others to decide) will be posed here as questions. I'll try to structure comments according to where they appear in the article. I apologize in advance if I pick nits too minutely. It goes without saying that what follows is my opinion, and that others are free to disagree (even if they're wrong (grin)).
Obviously there are variations; I think The Lord of the Rings can serve as a good model here. My recommendation for the structure here would be to change "Publication" to "Creation", with only two sub-headers: "Writing" and "Publication". "Reception" can be postponed into "Criticism/Reception"; "Manuscripts" and "Illustrations" can be merged into "Publication".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartol ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It will be easier (and more productive) for me to comment on each section after the above structural elements are moved around. So if you're willing, please go ahead and make those changes (or tell me why you disagree and explain what to do instead) and we'll take it from there.
Thanks to everyone involved. More to come. I hope this is useful. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Good luck with this project! –
Scartol ·
Talk 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am so sorry to have to fail this article again, especially after so much work has obviously gone into it. However, there are just too many things that still need explaining and too much copy editing that needs to be done for me to pass it at this time. I would say that those are the two biggest issues with the article at present:
However, I also feel that there is a third, more minor issue:
Examples where explanation is required:
I have full confidence that the editors can address these issues and resubmit the article. Feel free to contact me regarding this review on my talk page if you have any questions. Awadewit | talk 07:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get some comments for a proposed guideline about titles with subtitles. I would especially appreciate comments from editors of Candide because the title is not in English. You can direct any comments over to WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16#WP:SUBTITLES. Thanks! superluser t c 2007 December 23, 08:32 (UTC)