My point is that in fiction, you tries to bring people to sgare what do you think about a character. It doesn't matter when you are speaking about a totally fictional character and using him/her to defend your point of view, but certainly it could be dangerous if you uses Robespierre to say whay YOU are wanting to say and not him.

Fiction is O.K ;fictional history is not innocent.

I don't think it's childish to beg for a little more accuracy when reading a novel about French Revolution. When you portrais Saint-Just as a bad , psychopatic character it's clear that you wants to show him that way and bring the people to think the same. Yes, you also could do that with real biographies, but your work will be harder, since you need documents to support your views. IN fictions, you just put a nasty sentence in Saint-Just mouth and the work is done...

And yes; you sure makes a "tacit contract" with the reader, but you perfectly knows that most of the readers accepts what they read as real. I've spoke with people who believes thatBabette Duplay was an idiotic and would run after every single man she would see for they've read it in "A Place pof Greater Safety" or that Saint-Just was very happy of killing Camille just for "Danton".

I never wanted an author to portrait characters exactly as I should like them, but I become mad when they lies too much. Little lies are O.K;but I didn't like big lies .

I enjoy both, Büchner and Prybyzewska, tough.