Talk:C. Auguste Dupin

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Novels: Short story Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.

Name

I'm not sure where in the article it states that "C. Auguste Dupin" is not his name. I have never seen any indication that it isn't his name. The idea that "C" stands for "Chevalier" is a big assumption. It's not unusual for Poe's characters to go by their middle name (Arthur Gordon Pym is one). I don't support the renaming of this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See note 6.— The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm the one who added that footnote. Here's my question, however: How do we know that "C. Auguste Dupin" stands for "Chevalier Auguste Dupin" and not, say "Charles Auguste Dupin" or "Christopher Auguste Dupin" or some other first name? Please provide evidence from a reliable, published source that the "C" stands for "Chevalier". --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I went back to the original source, just to be sure. Footnote 6 — the only evidence you are providing for your moving the page without discussion — refers to Kenneth Silverman's biography, page 205. On that page, it says, "Poe brought back Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin, this time to solve the murder of a Parisian grisette..." Categorically, he is saying his name begins with "C" and he also has the title Chevalier, which the "C" is not a reference to. So, the only evidence you have provided does not support this article move. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Upon further research, he is le Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin. Sorry for jumping the gun. I waxed naive for a moment and assumed the Wikipedia text was accurate. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 19:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick move. I'm curious, however, where the Wikipedia text is not accurate. The "C." was never linked to "Chevalier" until you dropped by and added the link yourself. Then you went ahead and moved the page. Apparently, your evidence for the necessary change was from the Wikipedia text that you added - which now you're saying you "waxed naive" about and "assumed [it]... was accurate". I'm quite confused here! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he is French after all, might not we conjecture that the unknown prénom is César, the French rendering of Caesar. This, hyphenated in the usual French style with the following name, gives César-Auguste, that is, the Frenchified form of Caesar Augustus.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture here would be a violation of WP:OR. Lacking evidence to the contrary, can we just accept the "C." at face value and not make up stuff? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What song the Syrens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, although puzzling questions, are not beyond all conjecture."

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deduction

Might I ask why it is written that Dupin is using a deductive method? This is a mistake on the part of the person writing. It is the method of Holmes, and not a method by which one can discover anything.

--89.57.143.254 (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I have no wikipedia account, so will sign my name merely as Bob.[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Holmes seems to do a lot of deduction in order to come to his conclusions. Holmes's methods are ~~a complete rip-off of~~ based on Dupin's methods. Do you have a technical concern with the term, or are you suggesting that Holmes and Dupin are different? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Légion d'Honneur

The article asserts, He bears the title Chevalier, meaning that he is a knight in the Légion d'honneur

Yet it says, in the first paragraph in which he appears, "This young gentleman was of an excellent -- indeed of an illustrious family, but, by a variety of untoward events, had been reduced to such poverty that the energy of his character succumbed beneath it", meaning that Dupin's family were evidently part of ancient nobility and fallen on hard times; thus antedating the institution of the Légion d'Honneur, which only dates from 1840, the previous year before the story's publication.

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not speculative. From "The Mystery of Marie Roget": "When, in an article entitled 'The Murders in the Rue Morgue,' I endeavored, about a year ago, to depict some very remarkable features in the mental character of my friend, the Chevalier C. Auguste Dupin, it did not occur to me that I should ever resume the subject." --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the title of Chevalier used as a way of honouring untitled persons of noble blood (eg in Dennis Wheatley's Roget Brook novels), not sure how this works.86.159.5.29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since all this matter postdates the French Revolution of 1789, and the effective end of all official control of the use of titles of nobility, it properly belongs to that historical period of chaos as regards the affectation of titles. Given that the decapitations of the Terror blotted out many lines of descent and of inheritance, and conversely created new inheritors of noble houses out of the priorly poor cousins of their family trees, we should not marvel at penniless knights and landless lords assuming airs to which they were hitherto not entitled.

Cleverly, however, all the publication dates of Dupin's appearances in fiction fall within the epochs of Restoration; such as when Napoleon III, having been elected to high office, promptly undertook a coup d'état to restore himself to the imperial throne (1851), when a return to official control of titles and heraldic bearings might have conceivably been of concern again.

Nuttyskin (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article no longer about Dupin?

Just a note to say that, at this point, the article here is more about references to Dupin and adaptations of Dupin and Dupin in other media. The text related to those areas outweighs the content about the actual character. Which part is more important? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon Dupin's influence on subsequent literature and other media (as the first proper detective of fiction) outweighs the interest or importance of the character himself (he appears in all of three stories, in which his character is not very deeply developed); the article already says just about all that can be said about Dupin the character (from a once-wealthy family, fond of enigmas, lives with the unnamed narrator, etc). Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the character's influence is clearly made without the lengthy crufty list that clearly violates the policy for WP:UNDUE and also lacks significant reliable sources. Your comment only confirms my concern: If the article's content on Dupin himself cannot be expanded, the remainder here should be significantly shortened. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. I don't think it'd be a bad thing to excise the "other writers" and "other media depictions" sections entirely, while the "direct adaptions" section, while relevant, needs sources and could probably use a trim. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]