revolution_fr | really terrible historical fiction

...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).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's awesome of you to offer advice about grad school, but since I'll be going to France, it's going to be a little bit different. For one thing, I haven't actually "applied" for the Master, because they don't do that. I can just enroll as soon as I prove that my BA is the equivalent of a French licence. I do have a faculty sponsor though, so I know I'll be at Nanterre.

As for my senior thesis, the brief version is that the traditional analysis (the one that goes from Volney to Constant to Marx and beyond) of classical references during the Revolution is that the Revolutionaries were simply trying to imitate Antiquity. This underpins Constant's dichotomy between the liberty of the Ancients (on whose side he groups the Revolutionaries) and the liberty of the Moderns. However, recent work on republicanism and natural rights philosophy both during the Revolution and in the centuries leading up to it, suggests that this dichotomy would have made no sense to the Revolutionaries or the political traditions they were drawing on and to cut a very long story short, their belief in a kind of negative liberty which Philip Pettit calls "liberty as non-domination" (which term has been adopted by Florence Gauthier, Yannick Bosc, et al.) means they fit into neither of Constant's categories.

Now, I, of course, having observed that the Revolutionaries seldom actually seem to attempt to imitate Antiquity in the way they are traditionally assumed to have done (in other words, you can't actually explain the Revolution by saying that Robespierre thought he was Cato and Bonaparte thought he was Caesar, despite the disturbingly large number of authors who seem to think you can), it occurred to me that if Constant was wrong about the whole "liberty of the Ancients vs. liberty of the Moderns" thing, it might be in part because he was basing it on the false premise that the Revolutionaries sought to imitate Antiquity, which then led me to the obvious question: Well, if they're not imitating Antiquity, what is the function of all the references to it? And then: Even if they're not strictly imitating Antiquity, might classical references be linked to the rise of republicanism, since the Res Publica is, after all a Roman idea? and all attendant questions. But of course, the link with republicanism is really just a subset of the larger question, designed so that I can have a topic small enough to cover in 40-60 pages.

Estelle, your research project sounds really interesting!
We should talk about it together sometimes, as I am tackling a similar question (which reception of Antiquity in the the French Revolution Rhetorics), but from the Classics perspective :)

Thank you. I'd be happy to discuss if you'd like. It's interesting: it seems to me that most research that has been done on this topic has been done by classicists. I guess most historians don't feel qualified enough, but I think it is important to approach these kinds of questions from as many angles as possible.

It's amazing how the perception changes according to subject!
Amongst classicists, we always say the exact contrary: that traditional reception studies neglect the French Revolution because it is `too easy' (sic!).
For example Mossé's L'Antiquité dans la Révolution Française is a good book, but it is more an introduction for the general public, than a book for classicists/ancient historians, the same can be said for Canfora and alike.
By the way, send me a pm with your contacts, if you want so that we won't annoy the entire community ;).

I don't mean to imply that there's been a lot written by classicists on the subject. There hasn't been much of anything written by anyone (which is part of the reason why it's a good research topic), but what is out there is largely the work of classicists. Mossé's book is for the general public, but there was a colloquium for the bicentennial on the topic under the direction of Raymond Chevallier (of which I have annoyingly been unable to find a copy) and then . And there have been a few articles here and there - including those by Pierre Vidal-Nacquet and Nicole Loraux and François Hartog, which were probably the most important sources for the seminar paper I wrote last year. I suppose the main person working on this question at the moment is probably Jacques Bouineau, who is neither a classicist nor a historian, but a jurist (though I get the impression reading his book that he's more comfortable with Antiquity than the French Revolution, for what it's worth). In the course of the 20th century I think there were two books written by historians treating this question. And of course, as with the classicists, there are a few articles.

But really, there's not much from anyone. I guess I just have the impression that it's mostly classicists writing about this because it seems like a lot of what I've read has been by them.

For some reason, LJ messages don't really work for me. But my contact info should be on my profile page.

really terrible historical fiction

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject