really terrible historical fiction

[camille-love.livejournal.com]

...so, in lieu of reading for my exams (what's WRONG with me?!), I've been trying to clear my head by skimming through a historical novel published about a year ago, simply titled Revolution, by Jennifer Donnelly. First of all, it's technically for "young adults" (the protagonist is a high school senior). Second of all, its perspective on the Revolution is (surprise) very naive and, well, high school. I started reading it last night and I'm almost done now. But, for all its flaws and blatant royalist sympathies, I can't deny that part of me kind of enjoys it. It's kind of like, The Da Vinci Code only with the French Revolution. So, even while I'm groaning over the history and politics, I can't stop reading because it's a page-turner and I'm hooked on the silly plot! Below is the description from Amazon.com:

BROOKLYN: Andi Alpers is on the edge. She’s angry at her father for leaving, angry at her mother for not being able to cope, and heartbroken by the loss of her younger brother, Truman. Rage and grief are destroying her. And she’s about to be expelled from Brooklyn Heights’ most prestigious private school when her father intervenes. Now Andi must accompany him to Paris for winter break.
 
PARIS: Alexandrine Paradis lived over two centuries ago. She dreamed of making her mark on the Paris stage, but a fateful encounter with a doomed prince of France cast her in a tragic role she didn’t want—and couldn’t escape.
 
Two girls, two centuries apart. One never knowing the other. But when Andi finds Alexandrine’s diary, she recognizes something in her words and is moved to the point of obsession. There’s comfort and distraction for Andi in the journal’s antique pages—until, on a midnight journey through the catacombs of Paris, Alexandrine’s words transcend paper and time, and the past becomes suddenly, terrifyingly present.

If you have some time to waste (not likely, given that you all seem like intelligent, productive people) and are in the mood for some very lightweight, very not-to-be-taken-seriously fiction, then go for it.

EDIT:  Please forget that I ever suggested reading this book (unless you're reading it in order to write a vehement, public rebuttal of its contents).

Comments

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I guess that explains it to some degree. When were Von Hentig and Kretschmer writing? I actually have Nabonne's book, but I've only read the sections relevant to the Duplays, so I didn't know he thought Robespierre (or his father) was crazy. He did have a disturbing tendency to credit even the most improbable rumors though - like that idiotic idea that Robespierre would ever have suggested that a bunch of pigs follow the army feeding on dead soldiers and feeding living ones. At least there though the rumor in question does, I believe, go back to the time of the Revolution, whereas I've been unable to pinpoint where the insanity myth first pops up.

Someone ought to inform these authors that when you're writing history, you need a little something called *evidence* for your claims.

[hanriotfran.livejournal.com]

Von Hentig wrote his book in the 1930's or so. He was a bolshevik and must run Germany when Hitler reached power. Kretschmer wrote his later, after 1946...I don't know exactly the year. He was an expert in "morphologic psychology". He supported the idea that a physical morphology will be followed for a certain psychological behavior. For Kretschmer, Danton was an "athletic" and Robespierre an "asthenic"...and like some asthenix he could easily be an esquizoid...Oh, well.

If you have the Nabonne, please read the first part of the book. It's priceless in the bad sense of the word. The anecdote of the pigs made me laugh. I know I must not...but the whole idea is so idiotic that I couldn't help it.

I think that Robespierre's "insanity" must come from some Thermidorian pamphlets. Some of them are just unbelievable and ridicoulous...but some people still takes them seriously. Fréron pointed out that Maxime was always clenching his fist and had a lot of facial tricks and would walk nervously....maybe some "historians" took these depiction to assert that Maximilien was insane

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

It's as I suspected then: claiming Robespierre was insane is a 20th century phenomenon. When someone doesn't like him in the 19th century they tend to settle for "evil demagogue." In any case, regarding Fréron's portrait of Robespierre, I don't think he meant to portray him as insane, but I guess I can see how people might have taken it that way if they felt so inclined.

I don't have the Nabonne with me, but I will definitely go back and give it another look when I'm home. It sounds like it has the potential to be unintentionally hilarious (there were, of course, already parts like that in the section I read).

[hanriotfran.livejournal.com]

It IS hilarious, believe me! :D