Editing Candide (section)

=== Inside vs. outside interpretations ===
Separate from the debate about the text's conclusion is the "inside/outside" controversy. This argument centers on the matter of whether or not Voltaire was actually prescribing anything. Roy Wolper, professor emeritus of English, argues in a revolutionary 1969 paper that ''Candide'' does not necessarily speak for its author; that the work should be viewed as a narrative independent of Voltaire's history; and that its message is entirely (or mostly) {{em|inside}} it. This point of view, the "inside", specifically rejects attempts to find Voltaire's "voice" in the many characters of ''Candide'' and his other works. Indeed, writers have seen Voltaire as speaking through at least Candide, Martin, and the Turk. Wolper argues that ''Candide'' should be read with a minimum of speculation as to its meaning in Voltaire's personal life. His article ushered in a new era of Voltaire studies, causing many scholars to look at the novel differently.<ref>Braun, Sturzer, Meyer (1988)</ref><ref>Wolper (1969), pp. 265–277</ref> <!-- this may be usable for beefing up the "inside" perspective -->

Critics such as Lester Crocker, Henry Stavan, and Vivienne Mylne find too many similarities between ''Candide''{{'}}s point of view and that of Voltaire to accept the "inside" view; they support the "outside" interpretation. They believe that Candide's final decision is the same as Voltaire's, and see a strong connection between the development of the protagonist and his author.<ref name=bottiglia719>Bottiglia (1951), pp. 719–720</ref> Some scholars who support the "outside" view also believe that the isolationist philosophy of the Old Turk closely mirrors that of Voltaire. Others see a strong parallel between Candide's gardening at the conclusion and the gardening of the author.<ref name=braun569571>Braun, Sturzer & Meyer (1988), pp. 569–571</ref> Martine Darmon Meyer argues that the "inside" view fails to see the satirical work in context, and that denying that ''Candide'' is primarily a mockery of optimism (a matter of historical context) is a "very basic betrayal of the text".<ref name=braun574>Braun, Sturzer & Meyer (1988), p. 574</ref><ref>Crocker (1971)</ref><!-- this may be usable for beefing up the "outside" perspective -->