What's your favorite french author?

[mackinacisland]

Mine is Flaubert. What about you?

[Dark Muse]

I love Dumas, but I am also becoming quite the fan of Guy de Maupassant

[tonywalt]

Balzac or Pagnol.

Frédéric-Yves Jeannet (born in France)

[Emil Miller]

With possibly the greatest literature of all, it is difficult to choose one author, but Emile Zola takes some beating for consistently great writing over a large number of works.

[Vonny]

I think so far I've only read Colette and Flaubert. I really liked Madame Bovary - so funny!

[stlukesguild]

Charles Baudelaire... followed closely by Michel de Montaigne, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Theophile Gautier, Paul Verlaine, Gustave Flaubert, and Marcel Proust.

Vonny... you can hardly make a better start than Madame Bovary. An exquisite novel!

[mortalterror]

Racine, followed by Hugo, Baudelaire, Flaubert, Montaigne, Dumas, De Maupassant, La Rochefoucauld, Balzac, Celine, Sartre, and Apollinaire.

[Desolation]

Celine, Proust, Camus, Sartre, Rimbuad, Baudelaire, Genet, and Stendhal.

[Dark Muse]

Celine, Proust, Camus, Sartre, Rimbuad, Baudelaire, Genet, and Stendhal.

Oh yes, I totally forgot about Camus, my mind was just thinking more classical for some reason, perhaps the name Flaubert just turned my thoughts in that direction.

[cafolini]

How about adding among others Foucault, Derrida, Voltaire, Gide, Stein, Ionesco, Voltaire, Moliere, etc. and Etc.

[Charles Darnay]

Rabelais and Hugo - both excellent for different reasons!

[OrphanPip]

How about adding among others Foucault, Derrida, Voltaire, Gide, Stein, Ionesco, Voltaire, Moliere, etc. and Etc.

I was going to add Gide to Mortal's list and probably call that a day. I like Foucault, at times, but he's a terribly obtuse writer who benefits greatly from translation.

To bring this more into the 20th century I'd add Jean Genet.

And if French Canadian authors count as French in this category: Gabrielle Roy, Anne Hebert, and Michel Tremblay.

[stlukesguild]

How about adding among others Foucault, Derrida,

I've never been much of a masochist.

[Can]

I think the best French author is Jules Verne. He has lots of books. Also u can easily understand his books. I am the best fan of him...

[Darcy88]

I'm not that widely read in French literature, but I do deeply adore Camus, Stendhal and Gide, Camus being my favourite amongst the three.

[Arrowni]

Stendhal, Michaux and Montaigne are among my best. I also love Ponge's sensibility and Simon's materiality.

[Seasider]

My favourite is Zola. But I also like Daudet, especially the story of the little goat that escaped and got eaten by a wolf. Always makes me cry.

[Helga]

I have to admit that I haven't read much by french authors (unless you count Kundera cause he lives there and writes in french) so I am taking a class at school about french literature and I just fell for Camus, I have read a lot about Sartre but I read Nausea for the first time and really liked it but Proust and Camus are the best so far but I have a few more books to read.

[victorianfan]

Definitely, Zola.

[PoeticPassions]

Hugo, Camus, Voltaire, Rousseau, Flaubert. Still haven't read any Zola or enough Sartre to make a judgment... But it is no wonder, with so many great authors, that France is the leader in amount of Nobel Prizes for literature... I also like Foucault, though I agree that he can be dense and tedious. I have to read each line at least twice :)

[Gregory Samsa]

Montaigne, Camus and Le Clézio.

[ladderandbucket]

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

[wessexgirl]

Definitely Zola, and I like de Maupassant too.

[Stewed]

I've only read a few (and, man have I had good luck!). If I had to pick one, Montaigne.

[Olga4real]

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

Finally I see his name!
I like Zola, Hugo, Balzac... I love all of them but probably the deepest impression I got of The Little Prince. I read this book wen I was carrying my first daughter under my heart, maybe it was the reason.

[Des Essientes]

My favorites are Villiers d'isle Adam, Huysmanns, Flaubert, and Celine

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

The only one I've read thus far and that would be Hugo.

.

[Silas Thorne]

I haven't read many French authors, and then only in translation, but I love Alexandre Dumas.

[Calidore]

I'll add to the chorus for Dumas.

[mal4mac]

Montaigne.

Amongst fiction writers, there are many superb writers, and I can't really decide on "the best". Balzac, Flaubert, Stendahl, de Maupassant are all great. Sartre and Camus are superb. I haven't read Hugo or Dumas (Oops! Gotta fix that...) Couldn't get into Proust at all...

[Pierre Menard]

Baudelaire, Camus, Dumas, Voltaire.

I still have so many to read though.
I just bought the complete Montaigne essays, which will be my first reading of Montaigne. Pretty excited.

[OrphanPip]

I've noticed that Pierre Corneille hasn't been mentioned yet, but he should be as he is the third pillar of 17th century French drama, along with Racine and Moliere.

[monkeyboy7]

Camus, for his writing on existentialism. Sartre also wrote on existentialism, but I thought his works were way too didactic.

BTW, I think it's worth noting that most French writers (at least during the 20th century) were part of a very small circle. This allowed them to exchange ideas very frequently, but it was also made the literary scene highly competitive. I can just imagine them now—it's like their books were part of a larger set of social media contests (http://www.jib.ca/social-media-contests)!

[Brian59]

Balzac! If you are ever having a rough day just break out his Droll Stories and everything will feel better. I stumbled across this book completely by mistake, but these short stories are certain to elicit a chuckle out of the even most austere reader.

[fb0252]

where's love for moliere?

[Alexander III]

I have been thinking about it for a while. I would have liked to give a list of my favorites, but that would be pointless as the thread is all about picking one.

I am going to have to go with the original enfant terrible - Francois Villon.

[B. Laumness]

The French writers I admired, who were my masters, who really taught me something, and whom I still enjoy reading: Baudelaire, followed by Racine, Maupassant, Montaigne, Rimbaud, Pascal, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Stendhal, Chateaubriand, Balzac, Sartre, and Camus.

And now, the French writers I dislike: Bossuet, Marivaux, Lamartine, Sand, Lautréamont, Claudel, Proust, Genet, Mauriac, Bernanos, Robbe-Grillet, Duras, Derrida, Simon, Ernaux, Le Clézio...

[Emil Miller]

The French writers I admired, who were my masters, who really learnt me something, and whom I still enjoy reading: Baudelaire, followed by Racine, Maupassant, Montaigne, Rimbaud, Pascal, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Stendhal, Chateaubriand, Balzac, Sartre, and Camus.

And now, the French writers I dislike: Bossuet, Marivaux, Lamartine, Sand, Lautréamont, Claudel, Proust, Genet, Mauriac, Bernanos, Robbe-Grillet, Duras, Derrida, Simon, Ernaux, Le Clézio...

I hesitate to say this as your English is very good and it's a sign of bad manners to correct someone's mistakes, unless one is a teacher of course, but as you are French, perhaps I may point out that instead of learnt you should use taught in this instance.
I am interested to see that you don't like Mauriac and I am wondering why. I have read a number of his books and although they are largely set in the bordelaise region of France, I have enjoyed reading him, especially Thérèse Desqueyroux. I also notice that André Gide is not among those mentioned.

[B. Laumness]

I hesitate to say this as your English is very good and it's a sign of bad manners to correct someone's mistakes, unless one is a teacher of course, but as you are French, perhaps I may point out that instead of learnt you should use taught in this instance.
I am interested to see that you don't like Mauriac and I am wondering why. I have read a number of his books and although they are largely set in the bordelaise region of France, I have enjoyed reading him, especially Thérèse Desqueyroux. I also notice that André Gide is not among those mentioned.

Thank you for correcting my mistake. I know my English is imperfect, and the best way to improve it is to point out my errors of language, if I’m not careful enough to see them.

I don’t like Mauriac for several reasons. Firstly, the sensibility and the problems of the provincial bourgeois appear to me restrictive, because literature, in my conception, should aim for universality. The story of mediocre or even awful characters does not move me, even though it may shock me. That does not mean either that an empathy with the characters is necessary to appreciate a narrative. Indeed, since Flaubert, we know that the story has not much importance; what is important is the style and the composition; and Mauriac’s style, even if it is not bad, is not remarkable, rather academic. Madame Bovary is also a provincial bourgeois, but the author gives her a part of lyricism and dream, he shapes her in such a way that her character is closer to the modern reader. But in the 20th century, can a novelist still write like Balzac or Flaubert? Are there not new problems, a new sensibility, a new vision, a vision more tragic than that of the heroine of Thérèse Desqueyroux? That’s my second argument: Mauriac is out of date. And third argument: he is even a fossil with his catholic faith, like Bernanos and Claudel. – To be honest, I’m partial and probably unjust with Mauriac, since I only read Thérèse Desqueyroux, ten years ago.

As for Gide, there was a time I liked him very much: I read all his works, including his diary, so that I could call him also a “master”. But now, I could take the same arguments I used towards Mauriac, and dismiss him. Gide wanted to become a classic in a century in which classicism was not possible anymore, at least not in those forms. I loved his novel La Porte étroite, but now, if ever I read it again, I would see how it has grown old… It’s me who grow old, and I know that a book one loves at an early age is often read very differently later.

[dfloyd]

Bridget Bardot.

[Arrowni]

The French writers I admired, who were my masters, who really taught me something, and whom I still enjoy reading: Baudelaire, followed by Racine, Maupassant, Montaigne, Rimbaud, Pascal, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hugo, Flaubert, Zola, Stendhal, Chateaubriand, Balzac, Sartre, and Camus.

And now, the French writers I dislike: Bossuet, Marivaux, Lamartine, Sand, Lautréamont, Claudel, Proust, Genet, Mauriac, Bernanos, Robbe-Grillet, Duras, Derrida, Simon, Ernaux, Le Clézio...


Why Simon and Derrida?

[B. Laumness]

Why not? From Simon, I only read La Route des Flandres. I have completely forgotten why I disliked it. I just remember it was so boring that I did not finish it. Bad sign when I cannot finish a book. If I were a humble reader, I would say that this work was not made for me, that I was not prepared for, that I was inexperienced, or not intelligent enough to appreciate it, or that I had misconceptions of literature and was full of prejudices, etc. But I have a bad habit: I believe in my judgement, which relies on both my intuition and my culture; and I tend to think that when I’m not interested in a book, it is not always my fault, but that of the author.

Derrida is an impostor. He writes like a potato and he thinks like a gherkin. Read a real philosopher, for instance Kant, Schopenhauer, or Sartre, and afterwards read that excerpt of Éperons:



« J’ai oublié mon parapluie. »

[...]

Peut-être un jour, avec du travail et de la chance, pourra-t-on reconstituer le contexte interne ou externe de ce « J’ai oublié mon parapluie ». Or cette possibilité factuelle n’empêchera jamais qu’il soit marqué dans la structure de ce fragment (mais le concept de fragment n’y suffit plus, il en appelle trop de sa fracture au complément totalisant), qu’il puisse à la fois rester entier et à tout jamais sans autre contexte, coupé non seulement de son milieu de production mais de toute intention ou vouloir-dire de Nietzsche, ce vouloir-dire et cette signature appropriante nous demeurant au principe inaccessibles.

Non que cet inaccessible soit la profondeur d’un secret, il peut être inconsistant, insignifiant. Nietzsche n’a peut-être rien voulu dire ou bien il a peut-être voulu dire peu de chose, ou n’importe quoi, ou encore fait semblant de vouloir dire quelque chose.
Cette phrase n’est peut-être pas de Nietzsche, même si l’on se croit sûr d’y reconnaître sa main. Qu’est-ce qu’écrire de sa main ? Assume-t-on, signe-t-on tout de ce qu’on écrit de sa main ? Assume-t-on même sa propre signature ? La structure même de la signature (la signature/tombe) disqualifie la forme de ces questions.

Puis cette phrase est entre guillemets. Puis l’on n’a même pas besoin de guillemets pour supposer qu’elle n’est pas de part en part « de lui », comme on dit. Sa simple lisibilité suffit à l’exproprier.

Nietzsche a encore pu disposer d’un code plus ou moins secret qui, pour lui ou quelques complice inconnu, pouvait donner sens à cet énoncé.

Nous ne le saurons jamais. Du moins pouvons-nous ne jamais le savoir et de cette possibilité, de cet impouvoir il faut tenir compte. Ce compte est marqué dans la restance de ce non-fragment comme trace, il le soustrait à toute question herméneutique assurée de son horizon.

[Emil Miller]

Thank you for correcting my mistake. I know my English is imperfect, and the best way to improve it is to point out my errors of language, if I’m not careful enough to see them.

I don’t like Mauriac for several reasons. Firstly, the sensibility and the problems of the provincial bourgeois appear to me restrictive, because literature, in my conception, should aim for universality. The story of mediocre or even awful characters does not move me, even though it may shock me. That does not mean either that an empathy with the characters is necessary to appreciate a narrative. Indeed, since Flaubert, we know that the story has not much importance; what is important is the style and the composition; and Mauriac’s style, even if it is not bad, is not remarkable, rather academic. Madame Bovary is also a provincial bourgeois, but the author gives her a part of lyricism and dream, he shapes her in such a way that her character is closer to the modern reader. But in the 20th century, can a novelist still write like Balzac or Flaubert? Are there not new problems, a new sensibility, a new vision, a vision more tragic than that of the heroine of Thérèse Desqueyroux? That’s my second argument: Mauriac is out of date. And third argument: he is even a fossil with his catholic faith, like Bernanos and Claudel. – To be honest, I’m partial and probably unjust with Mauriac, since I only read Thérèse Desqueyroux, ten years ago.

As for Gide, there was a time I liked him very much: I read all his works, including his diary, so that I could call him also a “master”. But now, I could take the same arguments I used towards Mauriac, and dismiss him. Gide wanted to become a classic in a century in which classicism was not possible anymore, at least not in those forms. I loved his novel La Porte étroite, but now, if ever I read it again, I would see how it has grown old… It’s me who grow old, and I know that a book one loves at an early age is often read very differently later.


I agree that Mauriac might seem rather parochial now but it does him a disservice to hold his Catholicism against him. In this he is rather like his contemporary, Grahame Greene in that it surfaces quite often in his novels, but despite his regionalism, his characters, who are often unlikeable, are committed to the land and the continuity of the rural existence. Marcel Pagnol, another writer, albeit of a different kind, has similar preoccupations in his novels. For obvious reasons, much of French literature is centered on Paris, and it's refreshing to read about other French locations because, as everyone knows, Paris n'est pas la France
André Gide was a prolific writer who is probably best known in England for La symphonie pastorale which I read about 15 years ago and thought very good. I subsequently read La Porte Étroite and found it even better but I did not like Les faux-monnayeurs. I don't know how Gide is regarded in France today but are there any authors writing now who will have the same impact that he had?
I don't know if you have read Henry de Montherlant but his novel Les Célibataires is one of my favourite works by any French writer.

[B. Laumness]

I agree that Mauriac might seem rather parochial now but it does him a disservice to hold his Catholicism against him. In this he is rather like his contemporary, Grahame Greene in that it surfaces quite often in his novels, but despite his regionalism, his characters, who are often unlikeable, are committed to the land and the continuity of the rural existence. Marcel Pagnol, another writer, albeit of a different kind, has similar preoccupations in his novels. For obvious reasons, much of French literature is centered on Paris, and it's refreshing to read about other French locations because, as everyone knows, Paris n'est pas la France

Giono is also known for his regionalism. Le Hussard sur le toit is one of the best French novels of the 20th century.



André Gide was a prolific writer who is probably best known in England for La symphonie pastorale which I read about 15 years ago and thought very good. I subsequently read La Porte Étroite and found it even better but I did not like Les faux-monnayeurs. I don't know how Gide is regarded in France today but are there any authors writing now who will have the same impact that he had?

I did not like Les Faux-monnayeurs either. Today, I think that the authors, the academics and the teachers regard Gide as a good writer, but he has lost influence upon the last generations, like others who were great, but whose greatness is more and more forgotten and even misunderstood in a world where literature and art in general are not the principal values anymore. Who are the new French writers who will have the same impact? Good question! I don't know. I'd just say that the only contemporary writer and intellectual who had an impact upon me is Jaime Semprun, whose works are unfortunately not translated yet. If ever there are good translators who read me, I give you an advice: L'Abîme se repeuple and La Vie sur Terre (this latter by Baudouin de Bodinat, but I'm almost certain Semprun used this pseudonym) will be regarded as classics.



I don't know if you have read Henry de Montherlant but his novel Les Célibataires is one of my favourite works by any French writer.

I have read it. Ten years ago, I was reading Gide and Montherlant. I have and I know almost all his works. I liked very much his aphorisms.

[Arrowni]

Why not? From Simon, I only read La Route des Flandres. I have completely forgotten why I disliked it. I just remember it was so boring that I did not finish it.


Fair enough, Simon needs to be read in a certain mood, he's mostly good at being lyrical. La Route actually left me with mixed feelings the first time around, but I didn't find it boring as much as I didn't see a point to it. Now I actually see the point of reading it, but it's not something glaring, I wouldn't pick it up as a novel, the mood and the setting is entirely off for my taste in a random novel. But not reading it as a novel was better, then again, we can only reread so much.


Derrida is an impostor. He writes like a potato and he thinks like a gherkin. Read a real philosopher, for instance Kant, Schopenhauer, or Sartre, and afterwards read that excerpt of Éperons:

Derrida isn't a philosopher in the same sense than the other three though. Sartre, Kant and Shoppenhauer themselves are very different from one another.

[aliengirl]

For me it is Dumas among the novelists and Maupassant among the short story writers.

[oanna]

Flaubert & Voltaire

[CarpeNixta]

Mine would be:
Dumas (father)
Rimbaud
Hugo
Balzac
Dumas (son)
and right now I'm reading some of de Maupassant

[Arrowni]

Stendhal and Montaigne need more love!

[blondiemcfi]

I must say I think Guy de Maupassant is absolutely stunning. I've read 2 or 3 of his works now and I am bowled over by how easy they are to read, as well as how relevant the stories seem to be to modern day society so he's a sure vote winner for me :smile5:

[Emil Miller]

I must say I think Guy de Maupassant is absolutely stunning. I've read 2 or 3 of his works now and I am bowled over by how easy they are to read, as well as how relevant the stories seem to be to modern day society so he's a sure vote winner for me :smile5:

Agree about Maupassant, which works did you read?

[blondiemcfi]

Agree about Maupassant, which works did you read?

I've read Bel-Ami which I was blown away with, and recently I read 'A Woman's Life'. That was bizarre in how modern it was! It was like reading a modern story in a classic hand. I'm pretty sure I read one of his shorter works too but can't remember the title! Which titles have you read? :smile5:

[Emil Miller]

I've read Bel-Ami which I was blown away with, and recently I read 'A Woman's Life'. That was bizarre in how modern it was! It was like reading a modern story in a classic hand. I'm pretty sure I read one of his shorter works too but can't remember the title! Which titles have you read? :smile5:

Yes Bel-Ami is stunning, I've read it three times and the same for Une Vie. I have also read Mont-Oriol, Pierre et Jean and Fort Comme la Mort.
There are over 300 short stories and I have read many of them. Boule de Suif is probably the best known but there are others just as good though too numerous to mention. I agree that Une Vie is a vivid account of a woman's life with what is probably one of the best last sentences of any book ever written.

[blondiemcfi]

Yes Bel-Ami is stunning, I've read it three times and the same for Une Vie. I have also read Mont-Oriol, Pierre et Jean and Fort Comme la Mort.
There are over 300 short stories and I have read many of them. Boule de Suif is probably the best known but there are others just as good though too numerous to mention. I agree that Une Vie is a vivid account of a woman's life with what is probably one of the best last sentences of any book ever written.

I totally agree with you about the last sentence! And I would really love to read Pierre et Jean (I think I have a very old battered copy somewhere!). I will check out Boule de Suif as well. (I think I can get a lot of his short stories free on my kindle so that will be a pleasure) I think it was 'Mademoiselle Fifi' that I read... but will have to double check! :leaving:

[Emil Miller]

I totally agree with you about the last sentence! And I would really love to read Pierre et Jean (I think I have a very old battered copy somewhere!). I will check out Boule de Suif as well. (I think I can get a lot of his short stories free on my kindle so that will be a pleasure) I think it was 'Mademoiselle Fifi' that I read... but will have to double check! :leaving:

Mademoiselle Fifi reflects Maupassant's hatred of the Prussians who invaded France in 1870. Another story in similar vein is Mother Sauvage in which five Prussian soldiers are billeted on a woman who lost her only son in the war. The young men settle into the farm, take on the work and are very kind to the old woman whom they gradually come to treat as a substitute for their own mothers back home in Germany. Then one day she locks them in a barn and sets light to it in revenge for her son's death. She is tried by a military court for murder and executed by firing squad. An interesting foot note to the story is that W.S. Maugham, sometimes called the English Maupassant, later wrote a story about France under German occupation in WW11, in which a German officer has an affair with a French woman that results in the birth of a boy that is the image of his father, who adores the child and ensures that mother and son go without nothing. But the woman's hatred for the Germans is such that she drowns the child in a pond. Called The Undefeated it is not one of Maugham's best stories but it's not difficult to see where he got the idea from.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I agree about Bel-Ami in particular, it's a great book.


I totally agree with you about the last sentence! And I would really love to read Pierre et Jean (I think I have a very old battered copy somewhere!). I will check out Boule de Suif as well. (I think I can get a lot of his short stories free on my kindle so that will be a pleasure) I think it was 'Mademoiselle Fifi' that I read... but will have to double check! :leaving:

Yes Boule de Suif is available here, I've got the same version.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004TRHM74/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

[TheFifthElement]

A quick shout for the ladies :D Simone de Beauvoir and Marguerite Duras are pretty amazing writers.

I also like Zola, Camus (though isn't he Algerian?) and Sartre. I haven't yet read any Balzac, but he's on my list, as is Dumas. I also heard that Alain Robbe-Grillet is pretty good. Anyone read him?

[B. Laumness]

Camus (though isn't he Algerian?)

He was born in Algeria and lived there his early years, but he was French, like his father and his grandfather.

[mortalterror]

He was born in Algeria and lived there his early years, but he was French, like his father and his grandfather.

Sort of like how Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell were born and raised in the India/Burma region but their parents were English and they both moved back later in life.

[OrphanPip]

Camus is a bit more complicated though, he was heavily involved in Algerian politics, notably he supported violent resistance against French authorities in Algeria. Of course, his citizenship was French because he was born in French Algeria, but it's difficult to define someone's ethnic or national identity when they were raised in a sort of white ethnic enclave in North Africa. His mother was Spanish, after all, so that makes it a problem to define his identity by that of his father, who he never actually knew since he died when Camus was only a year old. (I think it might be fair to say Camus adopted his French nationality later in life though, since he did live there for roughly half his life.)

[Arrowni]

I suppose the algerian argument is being used to nitpick the "french" part of this discussion. If that's the case there are a bunch of authors who weren't born in actual France, like Rousseau.

[OrphanPip]

Well I just sorted it by the language of composition, since I included French Canadian authors.

[blondiemcfi]

[QUOTE=Emil Miller;1086439]Mademoiselle Fifi reflects Maupassant's hatred of the Prussians who invaded France in 1870. Another story in similar vein is Mother Sauvage in which five Prussian soldiers are billeted on a woman who lost her only son in the war. The young men settle into the farm, take on the work and are very kind to the old woman whom they gradually come to treat as a substitute for their own mothers back home in Germany. Then one day she locks them in a barn and sets light to it in revenge for her son's death. She is tried by a military court for murder and executed by firing squad. An interesting foot note to the story is that W.S. Maugham, sometimes called the English Maupassant, later wrote a story about France under German occupation in WW11, in which a German officer has an affair with a French woman that results in the birth of a boy that is the image of his father, who adores the child and ensures that mother and son go without nothing. But the woman's hatred for the Germans is such that she drowns the child in a pond.

Sounds like a fascinating story, I will check it out, many thanks! :smile5:

[blondiemcfi]

I agree about Bel-Ami in particular, it's a great book.



Yes Boule de Suif is available here, I've got the same version.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004TRHM74/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title

thanks so much for the link! :smile5: