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

[camille-love.livejournal.com]

(I apologize in advance for what turned out to be a really long response that kind of answers your question but mostly rambles. Feel free to stop reading at any point.)

That’s great (Re: your senior thesis and grad school plans). At the moment I’m in my third year of grad school, which involves studying for my impending comprehensive exams (eek). If the exams go well, I’ll be due to submit a proposal for the dissertation in a few months.

I don’t know yet what my argument will be. You might remember from one of my previous posts that I’m interested in the Revolution in British literature from 1789 to 1914, but I think for the dissertation I would probably focus on the high Victorian period.

As you’re probably aware, literary critics that write about British literature of the 1790s often discuss the significance of the Revolution to the genre of Gothic fiction in particular (e.g., “terror” in both the political and supernatural sense). In fact, yours truly wrote a lengthy seminar paper on Ann Radcliffe’s sympathies toward the Revolution in *The Mysteries of Udolpho* of 1794 (see my recent journal entry, if you care to know a few details).

But, anyway, I’m also interested in the Gothic elements of the Victorians’ treatment of the Revolution. There’s some bizarre stuff out there. Have you ever read *Zanoni* (1842) by Edward Bulwer-Lytton? It’s a story about the occult (Bulwer-Lytton was a card-carrying Rosicrucian) set during the Revolution. Of course, this guy is the one responsible for the sentence “It was a dark and stormy night,” so you can imagine what kind of literary merit the novel offers. Still - interesting.

I’m also determined to somehow discuss Camille Desmoulins, who always seems to make a cameo in these novels. The Victorians tend to be fans of his. Not a surprise, but - what strikes me is *why* they like him, which has less to do with politics and more to do with gender and domesticity. As Claretie puts it, “l’amour de sa femme, le roman de sa vie, fait oublier même la réalité de son histoire.”

I’d be interested to hear more about your senior thesis. Also, you’ve probably already applied to your MA program, but if you want any general grad school advice, I’d be happy to answer your questions.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's right, I ought to have remembered that you study mainly Victorian literature, since I already responded to your post on the subject. The portrayal of the Revolution in literature is definitely a fascinating subject. I did - actually, I should say "I'm doing", since I never finished it - a series on the representation of Éléonore Duplay in literature (and a few entries on Saint-Just as well, for the books he shows up in but where he's not a major character, to keep things short). I would have liked to do the same for Robespierre, but it's impossible to be exhaustive in the same way: I wouldn't have been able to include every place in a book that Robespierre appears, so then I would have had to justify which excerpts I chose and it would have ended up practically being a disseration by the time I was through.

Was Ann Radcliffe really sympathetic to the Revolution? If so, I might have to look into reading her (in my copious spare time).

I've heard of Zanoni, but I've never read it. I can't decide whether it sounds like it would be painful or (perhaps unintentionally) entertaining to read, but I'm sure it would say a good deal about Victorian sensibilities. Mixing the French Revolution and the occult seems to have become a trend recently too, though. maelicia found a French comic including Robespierre and succubi, or something like that. There's also a webcomic and, apparently a YA novel about vampires and the Revolution (I saw the latter in a bookstore last summer, but I found the concept so unappealing I'm afraid I didn't take a closer look).

I think part of Camille Desmoulins's appeal for the Victorians, aside from this idea of his having had a "perfect" family life destroyed by the Revolution, is that it's very easy for people who don't like the Revolution to recuperate him by ignoring his entire pre-Vieux Cordelier career. According to the preferred reading, Camille and Lucile's executions just prove what a heartless monster Robespierre supposedly was, which, if that's what you want to believe, can make Camille attractive to you without anything else. Add in the love story and the orphaned child and you can hardly go wrong. Well, as long as you don't actually read Les Révolutions de France et de Brabant, for example. Ironically, the romantic Camille of the Victorians is precisely the one I don't care for. I have much more sympathy for the author of the Révolutions de France et de Brabant (I mention that journal in particular because I've read a lot of it for my research).

[hanriotfran.livejournal.com]

I've read your essais you published here about Eléonore in littérature and I find them fascinating. I wish you'll write more about this issue. What literature does to historical subjects is sometimes amazing.Movies and plays are very similar to literature in it. The same person could be portrayed in very different ways! And yet, it's the very same person. :D A monster or an angel...That depends on which political ideas you'll have. Interesting!

I've real "Zanoni" and it's delirious. Jacobins are all mosnters there. But REAL monsters. Hanriot is portrayed as an OLD, FAT - yes, old and fat despite the fact he was young and VERY thin - untidy drunkard who would cut people intentionally with his sword in the streets. Robspierre -yes, you see this coming- is very similar to a cat , was "cadaverous" and always had his oranges at hand...But a Marquise was close to him rady to peel them off and offer the fruit segment one by one to him...Almost a "Neron" type in "Quo Vadis?". He is the essense of evil.Of ccourse if you wants a big laugh, you must read it.

I actually like Camille's love for his wife...but I can sepparate it of his work in political arena. I'm intersted in his personal drama, as I'm interested in Hanriot's private life, since I'm interested in them for the men they were...however, I can't appprove the Camille of the last times and all good husband he was , he was not acting as a good patriot. Of course, he was not the candid dove that some historians wanted to show us he was. I think he must be more similar to the Camille of "A Place of Greater Safety" than to the angel you could see in Victorian tales or recent TV movies as "The French Revolution", by Enrico-Heffron. He was far of being an innocent little guy.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I probably will write more about representations of various figures in literature at some point when I'm not so busy. It's definitely a subject of great interest to me.

"Zanoni" sounds rather predictable, but looked at from the right angle I can see how it would be funny. I've never understood why people think they're insulting Robespierre by claiming that he was catlike though. I like cats!

It's not so much Camille's relationship with Lucile that I object to as the way that he's turned into some kind of sainted martyr to freedom of the press, when really all people want is one more excuse to depict Robespierre as evil. It's the same kind of hypocrisy that makes counterrevolutionaries claim they object to the violence of the Revolution when they really object to popular participation in government. But it's harder to sell people on the latter objection.

[hanriotfran.livejournal.com]

Well, I like cats too...But the historians who compared Robespierre to a cat, didn't seems to like cats so awfully much. The way in which they said he was similar to one of those animals is ver disdainful. People who didn't like cats (not my case, since I LOVE them) claims they are traitors and couldn't be faithful to their owner (which is false...One of my cats was 1000 times more faithful than any of the dogs I had). Some of these historians, depicts Robespierre's behavior toward his ennemies as a cat playing with the innocent mouse he's certain to kill. So, it's not Robespierre's supposed similarity to cats that bothers me, but the negative intention that underlines over the whole thing. They didn't like cats-They didn't like Robespierre. So, they identifies Robespierre with cats.

Of course, the problem with Lucile and Camille's love is not their true relationship , but the use the historians made of it to turn Camille into a Saint...

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I figured that they probably did not like cats if they viewed it as such an awful thing to be like one. I just find it ironic, given how much I like cats.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

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.

[ephaistion85.livejournal.com]

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 :)

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

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.

[ephaistion85.livejournal.com]

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 ;).

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

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.