Talk:Eugène Sue

Untitled

The article takes a rather negative view of Eugene Sue's work. Presumably, Sue's reputation was not high with critics when the 11th edition of EB came out. It would be nice to have a more modern reassessment. His most famous work, The Wandering Jew, is 1,350 pages long and was very popular during its day. There might be something of value in the work to sustain an interest over that large a number of pages.

I noticed that the URL has spaces in it and i mean the %s, if someone were to replace those with a _ that would be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.245.120 (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

¶ I, for one, would be Very appreciative if someone would undertake to provide summaries of Sue's many novels. They are numerous and most of them seem to spread over more than one volume, so a short account of their plots and characters would be much appreciated. Sussmanbern (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice of someone would write a modern article on this author. Parroting hundred year old encyclopedias doesn't lend an air of credibility to Wikipedia in general. 108.52.66.178 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Maurice Joly

Does anyone have any more specific information about the alleged parallels between Sue and Joly? I mean, something similar to the way that people have lined up lists of passages from the DIALOGUES and the PROTOCOLS and shown that clear parallels exist. Is there some similar work done showing a list of parallels from something which Sue wrote and Joly's play? i read through volume 3 of THE MYSTERIES OF A PEOPLE or THE HISTORY OF A PROLETARIAN FAMILY DOWN THROUGH THE AGES and nothing stood out immediately as parallel with the text in Joly's DIALOGUES. Does anyone have more specific information on what Joly is alleged to have copied from Sue and from which text by Sue? Simply citing THE MYSTERIES OF A PEOPLE isn't specific enough because that in itself is a huge 3-volume work, where each individual volume is itself pretty large. It's also been published in the format of about 21 separate smaller books. There is even a significantly smaller version published in 3 volumes under the title THE RIVAL RACES or THE SONS OF JOEL. That smaller version certainly does not have any passages which spring out as naturally parallel with Joly. I've read it completely. I've only read volume 3 of the full edition, because I assumed that the volume which had material relating to the French Revolution would be most likely to have been the one which Joly allegedly cribbed from. But I didn't notice any natural parallels in the text that could be made with the DIALOGUES. Sue has written other books. THE WANDERING JEW contained Jesuit conspiracies in a way which did remind me in a general sense of the PROTOCOLS, but with that book also I didn't find anything which stood out as parallel passages duplicated in the DIALOGUES. Does anyone really have specific information on which work of Sue's Joly is alleged to have cribbed from and what are the listings of passages which in each author's work that can be invoked to argue such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.13 (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Having read the entire thing in English (and this was the long version), I can state that I did not find anything that closely resembled what Eco wrote in Foucault's Pendulum. This was a shame because I did really want to find it. My guess is that Eco was doing what forgers do in reverse, instead of stealing forgotten works and passing them off as modern, Eco falsely attributed a forgotten text in order to disprove a forgery - i.e. he created a counter myth; in one way it is a pretty funny thing to do, and I would give him credit for it had he kept it in a work of fiction. Claiming it in a lecture and in an essay though is something different. However, on the other hand, the way to kill a myth is not through muddying the waters, but rather through strict honesty. The protocols were forged, stolen from Joly, end of story. Confusing the matter by bringing in Sue adds nothing to the story, and could, actually backfire because those idiots who want to believe in the protocols can pass over Joly and claim that Sue wasn't a source, since this I believe true, it would give the bigots one thing to be truthful about.

Removed the claim of plagiarism from this document. There is nothing in Joly that plagiarized Sue, even Eco doesn't make that great of a claim, and such a claim undermines the fact that the protocols of zion DID steal from Joly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.125.70 (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

References

I am not sure that the second footnote leads to an appropriate ref. Can someone explaint it or is it just a fake footnote? (The first leads to a blog-like site where the ref. to vengeance can be found, but not the best way to give credit to the quote...) (As for the 3d (Eco's'), I didn't check it yet). This is to say that I remove the No-reference-tag but remain perplex about secondary sources. Hence the 2 tags of the current version.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

=

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eugène Sue. 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/20131215031822/http://www.wanderingjew.freehomepage.com/ to http://www.wanderingjew.freehomepage.com/

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) 14:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)