Talk:Roger Caillois

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography , a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Note icon

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject icon France Mid‐importance

WikiProject icon

Philosophy : Philosophers / Continental / Contemporary Low‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Taskforce icon Philosophers Taskforce icon Continental philosophy Taskforce icon Contemporary philosophy

I would like to suggest that using the construction "Today, he is remembered for ____" needs to be bolstered by an outside source that may confirm that contemporary scholarship "remembers" him for these particular examples. Anneray (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Just to clarify a change made at the end of the entry- The previous sentence said that Caillois is "considered a major contributor to the field of ludology, to which he devoted his book, Les Jeux et les Hommes." This is a mischaracterization. Caillois' work predates ludology entirely, and as such to suggest he 'contributed' to it is imprecise. For the same reason, to suggest he "devoted" his book to ludology is a gross distortion. Ebenheaven (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure this Cesaire section is appropriate here. Cesaire's reading of Caillois is deliberately tendentious, misquoting him frequently as an avatar for a politics that Caillois didn't have and was not arguing in the Illusion a Rebours essay. It is notable that Caillois is mentioned in such an important book, but while he's singled out for special mention, it's for a few pages out of a longer essay. Here is an article discussing Cesaire's polemical use and abuse of Caillois' essay. "Civilization" and the Self-Critical Tradition, by Daniel Gordon I can imagine a fruitful paragraph that has a balance of perspectives on Cesaire's reading, but that would take up even more of this article. Given the implication the section suggests for Caillois' work in general, I think it should be removed. Infocidal (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC) [reply ]