Tintin Forums

Recently, I've been looking into Hergé's biography.
I heard vaguely he had a sad and dull childhood...
Psychoanalysist Serge Tisseron suggests in his writings that Hergé was depressed by family secrets, and I recall that Benoît Peeters said he got some child abuse.
Do you know about this? (I'm not intending to dig up scandal!)

TNT
I recall that Benoît Peeters said he got some child abuse

I'm afraid this is a very personal issue, and not one to be dealt in a Tintin family forum...
Maybe you should ask Hergé's characters personally, while keeping in mind they are quite personal themselves?

As far as I have read, claims were made that Hergé was abused as a child; however this was based on an interpretation of documents - there isn't a single piece of actual evidence (he never said it, and the correspondence does not mention it) to support it, as far as is known.

yamilah is being somewhat coy in his reluctance in discussing this matter, as his "tracking game" appears to be based on the notion that Hergé encoded information about childhood abuse in his books, and again there hasn't been any evidence offered which backs this up either.

I wrote:
Maybe you should ask Herge's characters personally, while keeping in mind they are quite personal themselves?

In other words, Hergé most likely 'told' something personal via coy drawn avatars or amplifications or reflections liable to echo exotic syllables thanks to a writing constraint* connected with poetry*.

This likely requires some personal interest in the oulipo*-related literary field of poetry* ...and a personal deeper reflection about image reading, that could help to find the way to some magic & unique construction, rather than bringing destruction*.
For what concerns evidence, maybe actually one has to find it just by oneself, via such a construction?

yamilah
For what concerns evidence, maybe actually one has to find it just by oneself, via such a construction?
Maybe we should be bit cautious when talking about evidence in this case?
Certain thoughts (or literary products, etc) can't be said to be logical consequence of one or other experience in life. There's no such necessity.

Your reasoning seems to be abductive at best, yet you seem to think it's deductive. I'm struggling to see any "proof" or "evidence". And when it comes to "logic" behind your theory, I'm afraid we are not using the word with the same meaning.

mondrian
I'm struggling to see any "proof" or "evidence".

Maybe you just haven't been struggling long enough?

And when it comes to "logic" behind your theory, I'm afraid we are not using the word with the same meaning.

Who knows?

yamilah
In other words, Herge most likely 'told' something personal via coy drawn avatars or amplifications or reflections liable to echo exotic syllables thanks to a writing constraint* connected with poetry*
The repeated mis-use of the terms avatar and amplification apart, your use of the words most likely have no place in this, surely?
The most likely proposition is that there isn't a message - it stands to reason.

All the stuff about echoes, syllabls, poetry etc. is entirely of your own creation - you haven't shown any evidence that Hergé would even recgonize what you are saying, let alone understand it.

Until there is any evidence (and I tend to mondrian's position on this) to the contrary, that is the position one must take using logic (again I am with modrian on this).

Maybe you just haven't been struggling long enough?
You haven't indicated that a futile struggle is worth the effort...

All the stuff about echoes, syllabls, poetry etc. is entirely of your own creation
Maybe such a tribute should rather be paid to Hergé, who asserted there was a message in his artwork?

You haven't indicated that a futile struggle is worth the effort
Maybe -and perhaps for those who are interested in rebuses only- there's a non-futile surprise in the end?

mondrian
Your reasoning seems to be abductive at best, yet you seem to think it's deductive.
I suppose by 'abductive' you mean inductive?
In the case of a rebus, would your reasoning be only inductive, only deductive, or both?

yamilah
I suppose by 'abductive' you mean inductive?
No, I meant abductive.

In the case of a rebus, would your reasoning be only inductive, only deductive, or both?
I}d rather not reason about that at all.
You do know what happens when you mix false premises with any kind of logic?

mondrian
I meant abductive.
Thanks for your chief remark: contrary to induction and deduction, abduction is the only way of reasoning through which one can discover new knowledge!

Considering abduction is sometimes called the "method of the detective", it's certainly part of any tracking game, aside from induction and deduction!