Talk:Patrick Modiano

Untitled

I removed the following statement (which was inaccurate the way it was written) to include it in the body of the text:

A number of his novels have been adapted for film [1], Lacombe Lucien by Louis Malle probably being the most famous.

Reasons for this change:

• -Rare are the books by Modiano to have been adapted in cinema.
• - Lacombe Lucien has never been a novel written by Modiano, he just wrote the scenario of the movie.
• - That is probably not the most significant achievement of Modiano, thus not necessary to include in the head of the article. - Marechad (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unexpected?

The article claims the Nobel came unexpected, but yesterday his odds were 10/1 with the bookies, ahead of yearly favorite Roth: http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/poll/2014/oct/08/who-should-win-nobel-prize-literature-ngugi-wa-thiongo-haruki-murakami-philip-roth 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Villa Triste

Not Villa triste. The title does not refer simply to a villa that is a sad place, it is the name given to a place (a modest house and not a villa at all) by one the characters. If you own a copy of the French edition it is easy enough to confirm in the front matter or simply by viewing the book's cover online. Could someone please correct this for the French Wikipedia article? I changed what I could but have forgotten how to edit headings. Same problem with listing of Spanish ed.

Do not agree. I would count on what http://catalogue.bnf.fr says: Villa triste. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That does not mean they got the title correct. Those entries at bnf can simply be input by a clerk who has never read or touched the actual book. Why would you base your opinion on this rather than looking at the actual book itself. I own a copy of the French edition published by Gallimard. The cover says Villa Triste. The title page says Villa Triste. The author profile inside the book says Villa Triste.

You may be correct that bnf got it "wrong". But while title pages may carry capitals also for adjectives, bibliographic standards go by grammar. This may be part of why there is some confusion here. If you can, look into the text itself. To convince me, I would need a quote or two from the text that prove that Triste is a name and not an adjective. (My hypothesis is that it is both, and quite intentionally so.) --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"The title seems at first to refer to an elegant yet melancholy resort in the French Alps but this impression is deceptive: though not a word suggests it, villa triste is the Italian term for the buildings where the Fascists tortured opponents during the last years of WWII." Jesper Svenbro, "The Nobel Prize in Literature 2014 - Presentation Speech", nobelprize.org, 12 December 2014 --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I am right! ; ) My view is that for catalogs since no expert judgement is thought to be required that a data entry clerk simply relies on a spell check or grammar check software resulting in an incorrect entry being made. The author is concerned with the names of different villas or chalets and social status of their owners and gives some of the names in some sections "Nous suivons une route bordee de villas dont l'exterieur rappelait les chalets de montagne et ou depuis plusiers generations deja, une bourgeoisie reveuse passait ses vacances. Parfois ces maisons etaient cachees par des massifs d'aubepines ou des sapins. Villa Primevere, Villa Edelweiss, Les Chamois, Chalet Marie-Rose... (p. 71)" Why is it not Villa edelweiss? Because it is the name of a place. "Villas de la bourgeoisie locale aux masses et aux styles variables, selon le degre de fortune. Celle des Meinthe au coin de l'avenue...etait assez modeste si on la comparait aux autres. [...] Et sur le portail de bois blanc ecaille, Meinthe avait inscrit maladroitement a peinture noire (c'est lui qui me l'a confie) : VILLA TRISTE (p. 173)." The all caps is from the original text but obviously refers to his naming of the place.

We can also see the erring but minority hand of the grammar check program reliant clerk with the correct title of the book which had to have been confirmed with the author himself here all on the same page nominally of the publisher but perhaps partly or wholly outsourced and not necessarily produced in-house:

http://www.gallimard.fr/searchinternet/advanced?all_title=Villa+Triste&SearchAction=1&SearchAction=ok

It conflates the issue to bring up bibliographical standards which do not apply to the body of an article's text, an article's title or a simple listing of his works within the text of the article which is separate from all this and simply comes afterwards as a reference to the actual article.

It further conflates the issue to imply that Villa Triste would not be grammatically correct. Of course, it would be correct. Provided, that the both words, Villa and Triste, were parts of the same name. Otherwise we would have new Orleans instead of New Orleans or new York instead of New York. New York was both the name of a place and a new place at the same time it was named so why are you arguing that in a case where both meanings are relevant that the non-capitalization of an adjective supersedes its being capitalized as part of a place name?

Your original hypothesis had nothing to do with intentions. It simply asserted that bnf was incapable of error and superseded both the author and the publisher and ought to be mechanically followed without question. How could someone who has never seen the book or read any of the novel substantiate their opinion of the author's intentions? You can make the same argument for any similar namings of places. Yet we do not find people alternately using new York and New York. None of the wikipedia articles on that city intermingle both usages.

Still, you might agree that, strictly speaking, your quote "VILLA TRISTE" is not a proof that "Villa Triste" is the correct spelling. Maybe you find another quote. And in case you cannot reproduce the spelling "Villa Triste" from any page of the work, well... we might ask for a third opinion or ask the author or publisher for clarification. In a nutshell: Your argument does not convince me yet, but feel free to change it in the articles as you think fit. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What matters is what his intention is in making the sign, that of giving a mock name to a place. Not in the lettering of the sign itself. After all he is making a sign, not writing the book. This is why it is important for people to actually read whole books not just snippets in order to get a full understanding of context and intention, and not just sit at a PC and cite grammar rules and try to give opinions about a book they know nothing about. Are you trying to now arguing the the Bible is not the Bible since we can find no appearance of this title in the body of the text of the Bible? As for changing anything, maybe eventually, but it amuses me for now to see how your posts and the errors that exist on Wikipedia support my contention that most are made by people who have no direct experience with the topics they either edit or give opinions about. I would submit that all those who wrote Villa triste if we could ask them would admit they had never seen let alone read the actual book but were just relying on a secondary source. You would fall into that category. Try actually reading a book for a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.252.205.156 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It also is interesting that a society that produces as fastidious an institution as the French Academy has a Wikipedia.fr community with such a strong contingency of non-readers of this book contributing errors to their article based on a misunderstanding of which grammar rule to apply rather than actually reading the book it seems. As for contacting authors or publishers, you must have little experience in this sort of thing. They almost never bother to reply to such inquiries, especially if the question were as absurd as yours, the answer to which they would probably consider self-evident from simply looking at a copy of the book itself, and not worth the bother of composing a reply.

Well, any assumption about people you do not know might turn out to be useful once you wish to look up what was your verdict a while ago. (Reading Modiano can surely teach anyone on memory... btw, if you were able to read any German, or actually to use that language in case you know it, and maybe some Wikipedia literacy, you could easily have found out more about the user you are discussing with here.)

As for your argument, why not produce a proper source from the secondary literature—and not just insist on changing the spelling of the title without adding anything substantial to the article itself; or, for that matter, why not start a proper entry. Over to you. Feel free to ping me in case you seek a mentor, cheers, --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My Wikipedia literacy is just fine. I am making no assumptions. What I found was not surprising. A computer technologist with no qualifications to discuss literature and showing no evidence of having read this novel. Why bother with a secondary source when the primary sources all say Villa Triste? I think it is up to you to produce support for your wanting to over-rule the author and publisher in using Villa triste. So far you have evaded this responsibility? Mentor? Ha, ha. Only if one wants to learn how to add more errors to Wikipedia about books one has never read, which is not something I aspire to. As for the Wikipedia.de, in the listing of his works, at least, that community did to their credit correctly enter Villa Triste.

I have found someone who requires your mentoring skills: Mezigue http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Villa_Triste_(roman)

I have found someone who requires your mentoring skills: Mezigue http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Villa_Triste_(roman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.252.205.156 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am having trouble following this conversation or understanding why someone thinks I need mentoring skills, but for future reference, the Wikipedia sites in various languages are separate, so discussing the French page on the Talk page for the English version is completely pointless. It so happens I saw both but that was luck. Mezigue (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They can't be that separate as one can see you have migrated yourself back and forth between the two. The content may differ but this does not mean that someone who reads a discussion from the English page will not be influenced to go over to the French page and make an edit. Someone who has never read the book kept insisting that Villa triste was the correct title and not Villa Triste which appears on the cover and title page. But that person could not furnish any evidence to support her theory. This is probably the source of your confusion. It would confuse most people I think.

That same person--not me--appears to think that anyone who does not believe that Villa triste is correct is in need of mentoring in the ways of Wikipedia. Have you read actually book? If not, someone might consider any contribution you make to this discussion even more pointless.

O.k., if you rate your Wikipedia literacy as just fine, why not act yourself instead of asking (see above) "Could someone please correct this". Go ahead if you think you know what is correct. Btw, when making any changes anywhere on Wikipedia discussion pages, from now on please sign your contribution with --~~~~. Bye, --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Asking? No. Delegating? Yes. Now I will continue to mentor you on how to use primary sources with a little homework assignment for you. Go to your local library. A German language one will be fine. Find this book and open it to page 191 and report back to us on how Villa Triste is written there. And remember this, that when making any contribution on Wikipedia, signed or not, the most important thing is to begin with the correct facts. Now go and do this simple homework task I have given to you and report back to your mentor.

Yes, Mezigue, actually, I consider this is an interesting exchange given that talk pages usually have the function to host discussions about what to contribute to the topic on the article page that it is linked to ;-) Also, the flow of this discussion is not longer chronological. Anyway, now we finally have been given a reference to page 191 of Villa Triste (in which language?) but the user is still not willing to provide any quote as evidence of the claim made, well then, byebye, --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The language is French, but I am sure it will be the same in German. I've tossed the ball to you as part of my mentoring you in how to find quotes by yourself. You are the one refusing to give us a quote that supports your theory that Villa triste is correct. Delegating is the best way to mentor people. So I have delegated this task to you. I already know what I know. While you insist on remaining willfully ignorant of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.252.205.156 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"being able to put up"??

This sentence makes absolutely no sense: "He completed his secondary education by government aid, being able to put up between the absence of his father and his mother's frequent tours." I'm leaving it unchanged only because I have no idea what the real intention behind it is. 850 C (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This sort of gibberish is what happens when you are writing in one language while thinking in an other one (French). I have cleared that up a bit. Mezigue (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sephardic?

He is listed in Sephardic Jews. Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)