Talk:La Peau de chagrin

criticisms

Criticisms:

There's an awful lot of general information about Balzac's career here, which I would think would belong in the main page on Balzac.

The material that's actually about the novel is somewhat lost in information about the role of the novel in Balzac's career.

The first version of this page included a quotation from the novel to explain it's theme. Why was the quotation deleted?

-- Doom (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Doom. I feel that the background on Balzac is very significant here – much of it relates to the autobiographical elements of the novel, and I believe it's important to know where he was in his life when he wrote Peau.

I don't really agree that the information about the novel's contents are lost in the info about B's career. Most of the article is dedicated to the style and themes of the book; only the Background and Reception/legacy sections are about the larger context (which, again, are vital to understanding the book in the grand scheme of things). I followed the same pattern in Le Père Goriot and Louis Lambert (novel), both of which have been recently Featured.

As for the extended quotation from the shopkeeper, it appears in a trimmed format in the section Vouloir, pouvoir, and savoir. I didn't feel that the entire quotation was needed, when samples provide sufficient insight – and I really feel that explanation is needed more with regard to that section.

Thanks again for your feedback! – Scartol • Tok 11:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think to a large extent this page has become an episode in the Life of Balzac, rather than a page about the book... I might suggest thinking about a reorganization of the material, keeping information about theme/synopsis and so on up top, and pushing the "Background" down, a little further into the background.

Ah yes, I see what you've done with the shopkeeper quote -- I usually like to let to just let the authors speak for themselves, but I have to say I like the way you interject bits about the original french and other translations. -- Doom (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I did an edit on the intro (aka lede) to show what I mean -- I just moved the second paragraph down to immediately before the last paragraph. This way it starts off with a discussion of the book itself, and then flows into a discussion of the book in the context of Balzac's carreer. -- Doom (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your intent, I prefer the original design, which reflected the structure of the article itself. (I assume, however, that you'd rather see the article also rearranged.) But again, I've used the earlier pattern in other Balzac Featured Articles, and I feel that this is a "If it ain't broke..." situation. Most every book I've read about Balzac in preparation for this article – including, for example, H. J. Hunt's exhaustive analysis of the entire Comédie humaine – starts with the biographical data, then segues into a discussion of the style and themes of the work. I don't see why we should approach it differently. – Scartol • Tok 11:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

reflected the structure of the article -- that was not at all obvious. The way it read to me is that the intro was jumping back and forth between subjects. And yes, you're right, I'm talking about organizing the whole article that way. My attitude is, if this is a page about a book, then you talk about the book first, then deal with interesting digressions later.

I haven't read the Hunt, but I can see that if you were trying to deal with the entire Human Comedy in one work, you might as well start with the biographical information, because it's going to be the same throughout. It would seem to me that the way we do that in wikipedia land is keep the biographical info largely (though probably not entirely) in one page... By the way: (1) I sincerely appreciate the amount of work and level of detail you're putting into these pages (2) not all criticism is a ballpeen hammer to be deflected. -- Doom (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I'm taking it on faith that you have the best interest of the article in mind. But if we look at some literature FAs as models, we see the pattern currently in place (background first, then novel discussion) used time and time again: Pattern Recognition (novel); Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; The Slave Community; etc. Obviously this is not the only way to proceed, and I understand your point – but I disagree with it. Perhaps we should get a third opinion, rather than trying to convince each other? – Scartol • Tok 13:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Or just let the subject sit for awhile and see what we think about it later. There isn't any need to find The Right Answer immediately. -- Doom (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, but I'd like to take it to FAC before too long, and I'd like to resolve this before that happens. – Scartol • Tok 10:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, let me try to summarize my position:

Articles about a book should discuss the the book first (synopsis, theme, style), then related subjects such as the role of the book in the author's career and the influence of the book on the world. In the case of this article, that would mean moving the sections "Background" and "Writing and publication" down after "Themes" and before "Reception and legacy".

Are you up on the procedure for calling in adjudication? I haven't looked at that material in a while. -- Doom (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean an official process? I was just thinking we post a note at WP:NOVELS and ask someone for another opinion. I don't think we're at the edit-war stage yet, heh. (I would point out that the Novels project style guidelines follow the same pattern I used.) – Scartol • Tok 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for the pointer toward the good the Novels style guide, and it could be I should be arguing about some things over there rather than here (e.g. I don't see why the lede should parallel the article). But take a look at the description of what material should go in the "Background" section. I don't think those paragraphs about the author's career quite fits.

(Sorry if it seems like I'm going on a lot about a minor issue: I've got this thing about how people often end up discussing celebrity when they start out trying to discuss the works of celebrities -- this is the sort of thing that happens in "music journalism" a lot. I think Balzac is a rock star with similar pitfalls.)

Anyway, I'm trying to raise this issue in the discussion page for that style guideline, let's see if anyone wants to weigh in.

-- Doom (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the feedback has been almost unanimously "it's fine either way", I'd like to leave it as it is for simplicity's sake, if you don't mind terribly. I've composed two other Balzac FAs in the chronological style, and I'd just as soon keep going in this manner. – Scartol • Tok 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

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 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mary Shelley connection

According to Sunstein, "Balzac, who had been influenced by Frankenstein in his Peau de chagrin, cited [Mary Shelley] and Ann Radcliffe as proof that women outdo men in imaginative invention." (Sunstein, Emily W. Mary Shelley: Romance and Reality. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. (1989), 366) - I wonder if we can find more on the Frankenstein connection? Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. I've not come across this connection before, and a quick look through the indices of my ~25 books about Balzac yields only one passing mention, in Hunt's Balzac's Comédie Humaine. Whilst describing Balzac's wildly varied influences (and doing so in a very general way), we have this sentence: "He stepped himself in the novelists of terror, Horace Walpole, Anne Radcliffe, 'Monk' Lewis, Mary Shelley; from 1819 onwards he was a devotee of Maturin, and..."

Clearly this isn't much to go on. The other books have no mention of either Mary Shelley or Frankenstein, so I doubt I'll be able to find anything soon. Still, I'll keep my eyes open and hope that some kind of lighting strikes, like the tree outside young Victor's vacation home. Scartol • Tok 21:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas, clearly I think every article on Wikipedia should connect to either Mary Wollstonecraft or Mary Shelley in some way. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

TFA

Well, last time we had a Balzac TFA (the article on the man himself), it was a right gruesome vandalfest. Let's see how bad it gets this time. Thanks in advance to all the counter-vandalism soldiers on the front line! Scartol • Tok 00:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception abroad

Lots of questions from a curious mind, sorry :) What was the reception abroad? Did the novel receive any critical attention in other European countries, or elsewhere, upon its launch? I know Balzac ended up having a significant influence on both British and Russian literature, for example; did he only start to be noticed there later once his reputation in France was secure, or did the fact this publication caused such a stir in France raise his international profile? How long was it before the first major translations of this work appeared (I suppose I am thinking particularly of the first major English translation, and how it was received critically and in sales terms, but I suppose Russian and German translations, for instance, would also be of interest)? On a slightly different note, has modern critical reception been generally positive, now that the book can be viewed as part of Balzac's complete oeuvre? Although its fantastical elements may not be particularly critical to its literary value, they do presumably make it stick out among Balzac's complete work in a way that contemporary reviewers would not have been able to predict. In retrospect has this work been seen as relatively immature, or representative of Balzac's developed style? What features, if any, distinguish this book from the rest of the Comedie humaine?--78.32.103.197 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All good questions — alas, in my extensive studies, I've not found many answers. Mostly discussions about English translations and overseas reception have focused on the work as a whole, not particular novels. And although we've got many pages about the impact of this novel, I haven't read much about this book's differentiation from the rest of LCH, except as already delineated in the article. Thanks for the questions, and if I find more info of course I will add it. Scartol • Tok 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that many of Balzac's works required decades to appear in English translation.

Ellen Marriage (clearly quite a prolific translator, judging from her Project Gutenberg record) produced a translation (etext), published in 1895 with an introduction by George Saintsbury. There is a New York Times review of it here, referring to it as a "new translation" but giving no comparison to previous translations. There is only a slight critical commentary on the quality of translation, but it receives praised for reading "easily and naturally, and preserving the weight and richness of the original". There is quite an extensive summary of Saintsbury's introduction, which seems to suggest that Balzac was not well-known or popular in the United Kingdom around that time (presumably he was better known in French-reading literary circles). Confusingly, the NYT refers to the translation as the "Wild Ass's Skin" whereas the Gutenberg etext gives the title as "The Magic Skin". According to the Encyclopedia of literary translation into English by Olive Classe, page 98 (which seems to list all of the major translations of Balzac into English), this was part of a "The Human Comedy" series edited by Saintsbury published from 1895-99 in London, but which omitted a couple of works from the Comedie.

The same source shows that another translated collection by G. B. Ives et al ("The Human Comedy, Now for the First Time, Completely Translated into English") was published around the same time (1895-1900) in Philadelphia and London. A bit of googling suggests to me that this is George Burnham Ives (1856 - 1930), who appears to be another prolific translator from French to English, although I can't find a biography (for what it's worth most of his work seems to be published by the Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and he appears to have been an 1876 Harvard B.A. graduate, if that helps anyone track him down). Ellery Sedgwick is listed as a co-translator in this edition by The Oxford guide to literature in English translation by Peter France, page 277. The Oxford guide describes this edition as "lavishly illustrated", and slightly preceding the Saintsbury collection (which apparently has lasted longer due to its incorporation in the Everyman's Library).

The very first translation of the complete Comedie into English (and apparently, therefore, of La Peau de chagrin) was by Wormeley. Unfortunately Classe gives her name as Katharine Prescott Wormeley and France as Katherine Prescott Wormeley. Her NYT obit of 1908 is available here and gives her as "Katherine" (together with a fascinating set of obituary notes including "George Washington Holland, one of the earliest bankers and brokers of Wall Street", and William Lavino, who was Vienna and later Paris correspondent for the Times of London). She seems to have been famous both as a translator (France notes contemporary critical praise for her Balzac translations) and as a nurse for the Union army in the Civil War (an experience she also wrote about). I get far more ghits for her when spelled "Katharine", particularly for library catalogues etc.

Casse lists two individual translations for La Peau de chagrin. One is by Cedar Paul - London: Hamish Hamilton, 1948 under the title "The Fatal Skin". I think this alternative title for the book should be listed in the article, somewhere in the lede.

The other translation, and as far as I can the one used in most current editions for sale, is that by Herbert Hunt (1899-1973) a former Oxford fellow, professor at Royal Holloway, and according to this obituary a noted Balzac scholar (I note that some of his scholarship is used in this article).

While French's Oxford guide doesn't give much detail about the history of Balzac's reception in the English-speaking world, Casse's encyclopedia begins a substantial section on this, on page 100. One reason for slowness in translations to appear was apparently the perceived immorality of Balzac, and the idea that only certain of his works (not including La Peau de chagrin) were suitable for female readers. In general it seems that translations of individual works appeared faster in America than in the UK. It seems that many translations were obscure and printed in small numbers, and have simply been completely lost to history, so a full list of 19th century translations is impossible. Here's something really fascinating - in 1859, Wilkie Collins wrote an article saying that Balzac "is little known because he is little translated" (commentating more on the British situation than the American one). According to Casse, Collins had memories of an early translation of La Peau de chagrin but was not certain whether they were accurate, suggesting there may have been a translation which is now lost. Collins' article apparently launched a kind of British Balzac translation boom (which does not seem to have included La Peau de chagrin), but the quality of the translations was critically savaged and due to the difficulty of translating Balzac well, there was another lull for a couple of decades.

Unfortunately my google preview of Casse stops on page 100, just as he launches from the very earliest translations into the major ones by Wormeley et al. It seems that many a Balzac article could be augmented by information from Casse and French (Casse goes on to include a series of quite thorough critical reviews of a full range of translations of Old Goriot and Cousin Bette), although it's a shame about the information missing from the google preview. 78.32.103.197 (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is great info — thanks for sharing it! I do wonder if it is best to try and work it into this article, or into the article about Honoré de Balzac himself. (That article could use some work, even though it is currently an FA.) I can see myself picking up one of them there Encyclopedias you mention, since it's probably full of good info. In the meantime, it looks like (as I said) most info about translations and reception abroad is general, relating to the Comédie humaine as a whole. Alas!

There are actually a number of different translations for the title that I have come across; the challenge in Wikipedia, of course, is to give comprehensive information without weighing down the prose with all the existing variations. Scartol • Tok 16:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, most of it is general unfortunately. I do think there ought to be a fairly comprehensive list of titles this work has been called in English somewhere (to be honest there aren't that many, and "The Fatal Skin" is clearly one of them) but this is purely a personal opinion. I agree most of the information does not belong here (I can imagine there is enough for an article purely on translations of the works Balzac into English), but some of it is quite specific - it seems that barring the interesting possibility of a "lost" translation of La peau de chagrin, the first translations of this work did not appear until the arrival of translations of entire collections. And for instance, the NYT review of the Marriage translation is quite specific to this article, as are the two 20th century translations of La Peau de chagrin which did not form part of larger collections. 78.32.103.197 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Influence section structure

In the interest of avoiding a series of short, choppy paragraphs, I combined the different parts of the "Influence" section. Soon afterwards, Pol098 split it up again. Rather than engage in an edit war, it seems better for us to discuss it here.

While I understand the desire to divide bits of info into different topics, I feel that we must avoid a series of one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and we should combine the discussions of various interpretations and adaptations into one paragraph. What do other folks think? Scartol • Tok 13:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pun

Presumably the title is a pun? Yet the article doesn't mention this anywhere. Readers who know French might get this; but readers who don't know French might either a) assume that chagrin has the same meaning as in English; or b) guess (based on their similar sounds) that chagrin is French for shagreen. The article should address the title. Doops | talk 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's assumed by most critics, but there's no reliable source that confirms it (least of all as an intentional turn of phrase by the author). So we kinda have to hope we find one someday. D'oh! (The same is true of the word "bete" meaning "stupid" in relation to La Cousine Bette. It's obviously a homophone, but we can't reference it without a reliable source.) Scartol • Tok 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if you don't feel justified in using the word 'pun' unsourced, there can be no objection to a simple statement that in French the word chagrin may mean either "chagrin" or "shagreen". That's literally the first thing I wanted to know when I started to read this page. Doops | talk 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (P.S. — I take it you don't consider this a reliable source.)

I had not seen that source before, Doops. Thanks for it! I will add a reference soon. Scartol • Tok 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Balzac and Orgasm

There seems to be an overt connection between this story and Balzac's view on orgasm, that it drained his creative powers. Here is an excerpt from the journal of Edmond De Goncourt, via the Little Brown book of Anecdote:

"I have had happily confirmed the confidences of Gavarni on the economical manner in which Balzac dispensed his sperm. Lovey-dovey and amorous play, up to ejaculation, would be all right, but only up to ejaculation. Sperm to him meant emission of purest creative substance, and therefore a filtering, a loss through the member, of a potential artistic creation. I don't know what occasion, what unfortunate circumstance caused him to ignore his pet theory, but he arrived at Latouche's once, exclaiming 'This morning I lost a novel.'"

Anyway, I'll leave it to wikipedians who have more expertise and interest in these matters to determine whether, where and how to insert this thematic connection into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.172.61 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't shake the feeling that this is a joke. The wording does not sound like that of the 19th century, even in translation. However, Balzac did sometimes speak of "vital fluid". Nevertheless, I daresay that the Little Brown Book of Anecdote is hardly a reliable source, and I don't know of any specific mention in any critical text which makes any sort of connection between these two fields. Scartol • Tok 22:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing... my punctuation perhaps undermines the credibility of my source... it's actually the "Little, Brown" book of anecdote; As in, the extremely large, and entirely credible publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.172.61 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Mardi 30 mars. Paul Lacroix me confirme dans la confidence, que m'avait faite Gavarni sur l'économie apportée par Balzac dans l'amour physique. Le plus souvent, il ne prenait de la chose, que l'amusette de la petite oie, et autres bagatelles, regardant l'émission séminale, comme la filtration par la verge, comme une perte de pure substance cérébrale. C'est ainsi, je ne sais à l'occasion de quelle maudite matinée, où il avait oublié ses théories, qu'il arriva chez Latouche, en s'écriant: «J'ai perdu un livre, ce matin!»"

--Journal des Goncourt (Deuxième série, deuxième volume)

I understand that inclusion in the article perhaps demands a major critical endorsement from the literary community; so if not for the entry, then for your amusement. But you have to admit, as a bit of personal philosophy, the story bears a curious resemblance to this anecdote. Also, perhaps you could be more polite; the world has enough puerile, self-important jackasses as it is.

Hmm, having spent a few moments looking into it, I find a further bit of evidence: "Tué par un excès d'amour": Raphael, Balzac, Ingres. Marie Lathers. The French Review, Vol. 71, No. 4 (Mar., 1998), pp. 550-564

"a reading of La Peau de chagrin with the Fornarina [Raphael's painting] in mind sheds new light on the text's version of desire and death. Finally, J-A-D Ingres's biography is considered as a nineteenth-century art historical revision of that of Raphael, one that also foregrounds the desiring, expiring body.

"[...]Balzac was surely familiar with Vasari's account of Raphael's life and this, combined with a general resurrection of Raphael studies, contributed to the writer's preoccupation with the artist."

"[...]The official theory, that of Vasari, was that Raphael died of exhaustion from lovemaking.[...] The artist can work, Vasari implies, only if his mistress's body is available to him at all times."

The text goes on to explain Vasari's rather melodramatic position that Raphael's desire for his model is the undoing of all civilization, where "the model kills not only the artist, but painting, the Ranaissance, Christian art, Art itself." Getting back to the 'chagrin,'

"An examination of Raphael and La Fornaria's desiring bodies reveals the "model of excess" on which Balzac based his depiction of Raphael de Valentin's body, the character's relations with Foedora and Pauline, and his ultimate death by excess.

"[...]The end of Raphael de Valentin's body coincides with the disappearance of the fatal skin and Pauline and the reader's discovery that the sexual act is a mortal act."

Anyway, I don't know (or care to know) what wikipedia's criteria for use might be, though I suspect that there's nothing here that warrants inclusion. Nevertheless, the coincidence between this reading (as well as a few others I found) and the anecdote I mention seems too great to be mere happenstance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.172.61 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

About the significance of La Peau de chagrin in his career

I removed the part which portrayed La Peau de chagrin as "what boosted his career" and "made him known". Honoré de Balzac became known because of his work(first volumes) "La Comédie Humaine"(1815-1848), not due to La Peau de chagrin--Sarandioti (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

La Peau de chagrin is part of La Comédie humaine. And because this was one of the first books he published under his own name, it launched him into the public eye. Those phrases deserve to remain in the article. Scartol • Tok 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarndioti reverted with the comment "2 sentences because of no citation and false argument" - but of course no citation is required in the lead as it is justified in the main text. I will restore the two sentences removed. 78.32.103.197 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Although in fairness, besides the (essentially anecdotal) fact that he picked up one remarkable reader in Poland/Ukraine, it is not obvious from the content of the article that "La Peau de chagrin firmly established Balzac as a writer of significance ... abroad". Bearing in mind some of the comments in the sources about his foreign reception above, it seems that in the English-speaking world in particular, La Peau de chagrin may have gone untranslated for decades and Balzac remained little known, especially outside the handful of novels deemed "safe" for translation. Eugénie Grandet (1833, one of the "safer" novels) has several far earlier translations, especially in the United States where English editions appeared only years after the French original, as well as a translation into Russian in 1843 by Dostoyevsky (his first major work, although according the wiki article, not something that brought him much attention). I really don't know enough to stick my neck out and claim that Eugénie Grandet was what established Balzac's reputation abroad, but I can't see strong evidence (particularly within the article itself, which is the justification for not having to put references in the lead) to suggest that La Peau de chagrin did. So for now is it fair enough if I remove the words "and abroad"? 78.32.103.197 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. (For the record the bit about the book establishing his reputation is mentioned at the start of the "Reception" section of the article.) The problem with referring to the different translations as evidence for when he gained popularity is that it verges on the edge of original research, which we're not supposed to do. I've always stuck to books like Bellos when it comes to what kinds of reception Balzac got after publication. (BTW, IP 78.32.103.197: Why not start an account for easier communication?) Scartol • Tok 16:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was commenting in relation to that section actually - I just couldn't see anything in that section of the article that showed that this was the book that established him as a significant writer abroad; the fact that Goethe reviewed him and that the work reached a Polish noblewoman doesn't seem to be quite proof of that. It would indeed be OR to attempt to track down his popularity by records of translation - I was really thinking back to the comment that Balzac was described as being little known in England due to being little-translated, and this seems to be one of the works that wasn't translated into English for decades. The lack of translation just seemed to make the "established his reputation ... abroad" comment seem more tenuous, that's all. 78.32.103.197 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Šagrenska koža by Vladimir Kristl

Somebody added the statement "In 1960 Croatian animator Vladimir Kristl made an animated short entitled Šagrenska koža (The Piece of Shagreen Leather) inspired by Balzac's novel" to the "Influence" section. This seems noteworthy in the sense that Kristl was a noted animator, and this is the only point in the article where there is a suggestion of a filmed (even if short) adaptation of the novel.

While I'm fairly certain from rooting around online that Vladimir Kristl did indeed create an animated short Šagrenska koža based on La Peau de chagrin, I can't find a satisfactory reference for it. Somebody added a "reference" (although not properly formatted as a web cite, e.g. date of last access not given) to IMDB, but the linked entry doesn't quite confirm what it needs to. "Vlado" Kristl is given as the director on IMDB - definitely the same person, but we do have an article at Vladimir Kristl so it's not clear which way the name should be given. The IMDB entry also doesn't confirm that Kristl is Croatian, although perhaps (?) that can be treated as uncontentious. The date 1960 does appear in the IMDB entry (but I'm not sure whether this corresponds to year of release, or year of creation - my own ignorance about IMDB more than anything). The big problem is that the title Šagrenska koža does not appear at all on the IMDB entry, so it doesn't reference the statement that actually appears in the article. In fact the title is given as Le peau de chagrin (with Balzac listed as the writer responsible for the story), which at least confirms the link to the novel. But I can't believe that a film would be released under a French title which gets the definite article wrong (it should be "La", not "Le").

To muddy the waters there is apparently a duplicate entry on IMDB, with the title "Sagrenska koza" (which unfortunately doesn't confirm the Croatian diacritics in the statement added to the article, but "The Piece of Shagreen Leather" is given as the alternative English title, so this seems to be the same thing). There are a couple of discrepancies - one of these is listed as nine minutes long, the other as eleven - but the director and year are given as the same. Unfortunately the link to Balzac is not made explicit other than the fact that the English title is a direct translation of La peau de chagrin.

Does anybody possess a reliable source (I suspect in practice this means "not IMDB") that shows that in 1960, the Croatian animator Vladimir (or "Vlado" - which is the way we should refer to him?) Kristl made an animated short entitled Šagrenska koža (or, possibly depending on source consulted, The Piece of Shagreen Leather, or La peau de chagrin, or more unbelievably, Le peau de chagrin) and that this short was based on, or inspired by, the Balzac novel La peau de chagrin? 78.32.103.197 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Your dedication to this page is splendid. I command you to create an account! =) And you're right — IMdB is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Scartol • Tok 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly a contentious point of the kind that requires twelve Nobel prize winners to sign to it in blood. True, the IMDB is usually not considered reliable for establishing controversial or debatable items, but for merely establishing that such a film exists, it's usually considered perfectly fine. But it's not a big deal, I won't edit war over it. --GRuban (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't just the existence of the film though - and even for that, IMDB doesn't help in this matter by apparently mistakenly duplicating the film, with slightly different details under each title. There also needs to be evidence that the animated short is an adaptation of the novel. I seem to recall that the plot synopsis part of IMDB is considered less reliable than other parts because it relies on user-generated content. I imagine that the best sources to document the film will be in Croatian unfortunately. 78.32.103.197 (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the only website that provides the reference is Croatian - the site of the company which made the film (Zagreb Film). Here's the link to the site, and the English version of the entry [1] 'Vlado' is short for 'Vladimir', btw, so these two Kristls are one and the same. Tamait (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Arabic...

Perhaps nobody related to this subject will find this interesting, but we were having this discussion on another discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Writing_systems#The_mystery_of_the_writing_that_is_not_Sanskrit.

The Arabic portrayed here is not only frequently misspelled (it really would have to be to be coherently and completely Arabic) but the translation in Balzac is also way off. I provided mine, a very literal translation (as literal as you can get with words that do not seem to exist), on the other discussion page, but I thought it might be interesting to note that the French translation provided in Balzac can not be correct. Msheflin (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I added "from the book" to the bit about the full translation in the article, and added the word "imprecise" before "Arabic" in the summary. Thanks again for your attention to detail. Scartol • Tok 12:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on La Peau de chagrin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512080558/http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Appendix/Library/Vivian_Grey_and_Dorian_Gray.htm to http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Appendix/Library/Vivian_Grey_and_Dorian_Gray.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721103010/http://www.zagrebfilm.hr/katalog_film_detail_e.asp?sif=545 to http://www.zagrebfilm.hr/katalog_film_detail_e.asp?sif=545

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)