Talk:The Count of Monte Cristo

Homage and adaptations

I suggest we cut the "Homage and adaptations" section. The work has been used, adapted and inspired others for over 150 years - the list doesn't add to the article. WP:TRIV says "Trivia sections should be avoided." Any objections? Thanks Spanglej (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how I agree! Ccady (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the "Homage and adaptations" should be moved to its own page. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

#Trivia articles says "Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided" and explains why. It also says that the info should all be referenced. Also see WP:LIST. Almost none of it has citations. I cannot see what purpose a list article would serve and can't imagine it would have traffic. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivia is irrelevant, but the Adaptions of a work have significance in and of themselves. The fact that so many people have added to that section would seem to be proof in and of itself of their significance and that it would be used. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that "fact that so many people have added to that section" makes it a relevant section. 66.201.44.106 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the section, keeping the notable stage, book and audio adaptations. Places where the book is mentioned (TV episodes, songs etc) I have removed under WP:NN, WP:TRIV. I have also condensed the plot, (WP recommends four paragraphs). Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Character list

Re MOS I have edited the character synopsis, taking out their full story in the book, condensing it to who they are and their key role. Spanglej (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The article Edmond Dantès largely repeats information already found here, and further contains nothing of note that would be out of place here.  --Lambiam 11:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. No. --122.124.161.23 (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Do you happen to have an argument for your No !vote?  --Lambiam 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The Character is seperete to the novel. There is much background information on the novel in this article which would be irrelevant for # Edmond Dantès. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.47.3 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

[Note: some auto-formatting error had left the rest of this page as a comment before I unbroke it - William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)]

Neutral. What you say is true. However, information about the character could rather be gathered in the ED page as a detailed article so as to leave space for the novel as a piece of work in this page. Best regards,--ટ 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC) (Thanks to William M. Connolley, talk for unbreaking the spell) 20:32, (27 November 2011 (UTC))

Oppose. The character is important in his own right. User:Spanglej

support - the character is not notable in his own right William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

support - the character is not notable outside the context of the Count of Monte Christo. MurfleMan (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

the first Luc Sante quote

it is confusing. It could imply that the "Count of Monte Cristo" was the specific antecedent to the stories of Micky Mouse, Noah's Ark and Little Red Riding Hood, which do not seem to be connected in any way.

Characters relationship diagram

The diagram attached to this article does not really function as when enlarged the type font remains illegible and therefore unreadable, a useful diagram if it is readable but just a frustrating waste of time and space if unable to be read.Norwikian (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Span (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The diagram font is definitely legible on my screen; small, but 100% readable on full-size 2,448 × 623 pixel svg. Scarletp5 (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And is it useful? Span (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The diagram could have been useful indeed if easily readable (or simplyreadable.), which is definitely not the case. I suggest its removal while waiting for a technically better version of it.ટ 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The diagram is very well-designed and extremely useful for this complicated tale, but readable to me in only two of its formats, the 127kb and the 2000px. So I suggest that it be retained but in the 127kb -- as a linked thumbnail on the page with a warning that it is a large file, i.e. (large file 127kb), and a reference to the availability of the other format as well, I.e. (see also a PNG version 2000px). The non-readable formats should be deleted. Kessler (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why 2 pictures of the author?

Why are there two identical pictures of the author? 66.234.204.13 (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's removed.Span (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Another film to add -

Can someone please add to the film list: The Count of Monte Cristo (French: Le Comte de Monte-Cristo) is a French drama romance film from 1954, directed by Robert Vernay, written by Georges Neveux, starring Daniel Ivernel and Jean Marais. The film was known under the title "Il tesoro di Montecristo" (Italy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.104.126 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Another error in Relationship Diagram

In the diagram it says Lucien Debray courted Eugenie Danglars which he didn't. One he courted was her mother Madame Danglars which is stated quite clearly that he was Madame Danglars lover and business partner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.163.137 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations page

Hi What do you think of the idea of starting an adaptations of The Count of Monte Christ page? It would be something similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_Les_Mis%C3%A9rables

Mistake

The Count of Monte Cristo#The Count of Monte Cristo "and Villefort, now procureur du roi." He was procureur du roi when he sentenced him in the first place, hence, not 'now' procureur du roi. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction: At Dantes's trail, Villefort was a "Deputy Procureur Du Roi", he becomes Procureur Du Roi after the re-accession of Louis XVIII to the throne. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "lesbian relationship" in the diagram

Emm, I definitely think that Eugenie's relationship with her friend is the brightest example of romantic friendship in literature of the 19th century, not to mention her image literally consists of stereotypes of the time about lesbian women, but is it stated somewhere right in the novel? Or it was recognized by Dumas himself, similarly to the homoerotic subtext in The Picture of Dorian Gray, which was indirectly confirmed by Wald at the own trial? As far as I remember the text of the novel, the scandal in her arc was caused by the disclosure of fraud by her fiancé and his false conclusion about the reason for their meeting at the tavern, but not by the nature of her relationship with her friend. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. The possibility of an actual (or at least potential) sexual relationship is certainly hinted at in the novel, but never expressly stated, and the actual description in the novel would be just as consistent with an interpretation of the two women as "modern women" (in the 19th Century sense of the expression) who did not feel that their personal fulfillment required being married to a man. The plot device of having one of them disguise herself as a man could be read as simply being a means of aiding the couple to escape by passing themselves off as a married couple as a symbolic expression of a lesbian relationship. Dumas is very cagey about it.--Partnerfrance (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Unidentified source in Reception and legacy

The well-known literary critic, George Saintsbury (1845-1933), is named in the section Reception and legacy. I take it that he wrote an introduction and possibly notes for an edition of this novel. However, the citation with pages numbers in an unknown book simply says TCMC and the page number, without a year of publication, a publisher or ISBN if it was issued after 1970. TCMC must be The Count of Monte Cristo. I have searched a bit and not found the edition with George Saintsbury as the editor or writer of the introduction. Does anyone know which edition is meant? If you point me to it, I will enlarge the citations. Thanks. --Prairieplant (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I went back to 2011 in the edit history to learn when the text was added by editor Airborne84 who included full citation for the text beginning with George Saintsbury, citing a 2004 edition with Luc Sante writing the introduction. Since then, someone removed the full citation, which I have now added back in. Please do leave it in place. The text and citations were added here and here and here. I will not search for the deletion of the full citations, not worth the blaming. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Two background sections and too much of lists of adaptations

I started a section on Themes, a topic not much discussed in the article so far, except in the lead. It needs expansion.

There are two sections with Background in their titles, 4 Background to elements of the plot and 7 Historical background. They both mention the "État civil du Comte de Monte-Cristo" printed in Causeries, where Dumas explained some of his inspirations for parts of the story. I am not clear what Causeries is -- something written in whole by Dumas or an article in a periodical, two ideas I have imagined, for lack of seeing that source. Possibly these two sections could be made into one?

I spent time formatting the references in each, and making clear both refer to a particular edition of the novel in French. 4 Background to elements of the plot includes a reference to a full copy in French of the "État civil du Comte de Monte-Cristo", while the second Background section mentions the title and says it is found as an annexe to the French language edition of the novel. The ISBN are correct, etc, for the inline citations, but I think the text is duplicative to some degree. What is missing is a section often titled Development of the novel, with more story and sources on how it came together, like this section in the article on the novel by Charles Dickens, David Copperfield#Development of the novel. The first of the two Background sections in this article ought to be Development of the novel, but there is not enough substance there now to change the title. I do not have references on this novel, a novel I love to read, and wonder if other editors have sources to build up a Development section. I can assist in translating from French if the only information on that is online and in French.

The huge long list of adaptations of this novel seems out of place in this article. It seems like it should be its own article, referenced in this article as Main, with a paragraph counting up the films and stage plays, with a brief mention of the radio and audio book narrations or retellings of the story. Various editors have added mentions in many languages beyond French and English, and I used google translate to proved an English title where the alphabet itself was foreign to me. It just seems a distraction from an article about the novel itself, creating a character so well known, set in a period of French history that is also well known, and the article does not say as much as might be said about the various themes of the novel. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Corrected my own incomplete sentence. — Prairieplant (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation for Jacapo alias?

In the character tab under Jacapo it states "(Jacopo Manfredi is a separate character, the "bankrupt of Trieste", whose financial failure contributes to the depletion of Danglars' fortune.)"

Is there any citation for this? If not, I would assert the opposite. Jacapo Manfredi is not a historical figure and Edmond, being fond of both smuggles and aliases, would not hesitate to make use of Jacapo this way. 2601:1C2:4E02:C7D0:E858:EEE0:AC37:C725 (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

About reconstructing milestones from a potential erroneous situation

That movie 'Irreversible'? No: currently 'dangler' seams to be 'baumelnd'. 'des teufelst feste' is about lawyers, 'der Gipfel des Egos' ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:DBA:0:D482:410E:D7A5:ADDD (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Was Edward really "wrongfully imprisoned"?

In describing the plot, the article says the story "centers on a man who is wrongfully imprisoned." But, is that really the case? No question that he was betrayed by his best friend. No doubt the French justice and prison system was terribly unjust. Many unfair things happened to him. But, Edward did commit treason against the current government of France. By not being swiftly executed, he was given what I am sure was a lenient sentence. Should that description be reconsidered? Jyg (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

(I suppose you mean Edmond.) The denunciation is a lie: he is not a Bonapartist, and in fact has no political opinion. I’m adding: “… falsely accusing him…” to clarify the plot. 93.19.248.151 (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(Yes, Edmond, whoops.) You misunderstood what I wrote. I agree with you that Edmond was not a Bonapartist and that he was not political. Napoleon was in exile by order of the State and not allowed free travel nor communication off the island. Regardless of anyone's politics, Edmond broke that edict of the then current government and is therefore a traitor deserving of punishment under the law. You've provided no way around it. Jyg (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Social and history content

Benrn 2402:3A80:1675:3F70:0:6:F582:6001 (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Template removed

I try not to edit much, anymore, but I've been listening, over the past few weeks, to the excellent Librivox.org free, public domain audio recording ( https://librivox.org/the-count-of-monte-cristo-version-3-by-alexandre-dumas/ ) of this delightful, *very* complex-plot novel, with dozens of major and minor characters to keep track of, and have found this "Plot" section to be immensely helpful in following the story. There's nothing I've found on the web that's been half so helpful, although perhaps there might be, behind the multiplicity of paywalls I've encountered. I've read relevant policies, e.g. WP:WTRMT and related policy/help pages, and have concluded that, despite the placement of the "too much plot detail" template ( or whatever it's called ) by new user "Andgordo558" with a grand total of 43 edits, iirc, that even if their assertion might be strictly correct, per our policies, that it's reasonable and salutary to permit this level of explication for such a complex classic of Western literature, as an appropriate and beneficial public service. Please see my corresponding edit summary for the reversion, by which I deleted the "drive-by templating" as well. I'll just add, in closing, that I have no COI or self-interest in the Librivox.org audio recording: I don't know the Librivox reader, or have any connection to that site, other than as a frequent and appreciative listener. --OhioStandard (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Bertuccio’s backstory

I suggest that we return the content of Bertuccio’s backstory to the article, as it is essential to the plot and sets up the later developments. Without it, Luigi Vampa just seems like a weird interjection. Mrlocochicken (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Bertuccio's backstory is that essential to the plot. The information that's currently in the synopsis—that (1) Caderousse murdered a jeweler and was sentenced to the galleys, and that (2) Benedetto was buried alive by Villefort, was rescued by Bertuccio, and turned to a life of crime—is sufficient to understand all the later plot developments. I don't understand what you mean by your reference to Luigi Vampa, since Vampa has no connection to Bertuccio. What plot developments would a more in-depth exposition of Bertuccio's backstory be essential to elucidate?

Also, Bertuccio's backstory makes up 2% of the novel. Before my edits last week, it made up almost 20% of the synopsis here. That seems to give a small section of the novel drastically undue weight in the synopsis! AJD (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"Classic"

"In June 2017, Manga Classics, an imprint of UDON Entertainment, published The Count of Monte Cristo as a faithfully adapted Manga edition of the classic novel."

Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Isn't it more of a subjective thing rather than saying "it is widely regarded as a classic"? Isn't it against NPOV? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)