Robespierre: derniers temps (2ed.)

[ephaistion85.livejournal.com]

I am sorry if someone already posted about this book, I did not find anything in the tag.
A couple of months ago I finished to read the new edition of Robespierre, derniers temps by J.Ph. Domecq, as I was curious to read about an alternative approach to historical narration. I am not an historian myself, but I am interested in history and as a writer (to-be?), historical fiction is my preferred genre.
The book is an interesting experiment, although, in my opinion, the author sets to himself a too high task; for those of you who might have not read it, it is an attempt to explain the behaviour of Robespierre in the nigh of Thermidor through what the author calls `intuition de la littérature'. The book is not completely fiction and it is constructed around quotation of various sources (primarily Robespierre's speeches), fragmented by an attempt of narrative and various thought of Domecq himself.
The experiment was at first curious, but it soon become really annoying and personally I do not think it achieved anything new; moreover the fictive portions were not enjoyable.
Furthermore at the end of the book is attached a shorter essay (La littérature comme acupuncture) about the role and the theory of historical fiction and the eventual contribution that a writer can give to a historian. It starts from a very sharp critic of another novel, Littell's Les Bienfaisants (that I personally enjoyed as a reading), to debate about the reception both in Literature and in History of Robespierre's figure.
Now, some questions for you. I was curious to know your opinion if you have read the book. Secondly, what is for you `good historical fiction'? I have read mostly discontent with fiction settled during the French Revolution, so it will be interesting to have some debate about what would be a good fiction (if it is actually possible to have one). Moreover what is the relation between (good) historical fiction and History itself, taking to account the fact that we are speaking of two really different genres with very different rules?

Comments

[ephaistion85.livejournal.com]

I like reading GOOD historical fictions, but I know that when reading these, I end by knowing all about their authors ideas and few about real historical events and persons.
I agree with you, although I think, no matter what the author says, this is always the case when reading a fiction, no matter what genre. The reader always stipulates a contract with the writer and agrees to suspend his/her own sense of truth while enjoying the narration; this is precisely a point where I disagree with Domecq in is essay one the literature. He postulates that if this contract is ill formulated (like in Les Bienfaisant where the narrator, which is a nazi, plays with the audience saying `if you were me, you would have had the very same behaviour', of course this is not ontologically true, but that is when your suspension of critical judgment come in), then it is not valid.
But I am digressing here, back to my point. I think fiction should be judged by its own criterion and this is a thing that most of people fashioned by history/historians tend to forget. I am a bit tired of people (it's not just something between people interested in French Revolution, it happens with Ancient History as well and probably with any area of history) claiming that that portrait of Robespierre is `not true', that Saint-Just `will never behave in that way' and Desmoulins was `not as nice as in that book' (I read this kind of critics every time I read a discussion about a historical novel). Of course it's not true, it's fiction, it's the author writing with his/her own sensibility/vision of the things (and hopefully is the author trying to convey some kind of message). What should be right to say is `I do not like it' or `It is incoherent because of..'. A bad fiction book is a book which has stylistic/narratological flaws or historical in the sense that it does not respect the macro-event (you can't write an historical novel claiming that Romans had atomic energy, of course), but criticizing the work of an author because he/she does not mirror your understanding of something is my opinion is just ...childish. Of course the reader has the right to say `I don't like his/her treatment of that character, so I won't read the book".
George Büchner's "Dantons Tod " and Stanislawa Prybyzewska (I'm writing her name straight?) "Danton's Case" and "Thermidor". Büchner and Prybyzewska believed they understood Danton's and Robespierre's inner beings, but they only put their own ideos into their heads.
I do not know enough of both writers biography to judge the peculiar case, so take my words as mere speculation. I got the impression from the reading of both works that there was much more in them about the writer's own self and his/her time than about the French Revolution, that's way I found them literary enjoyable (especially Prybyzewska, whose characters (at least some of them) are portrayed really well and are consistently working towards the plot). When a writer is claiming that `he/she knows best of inner feeling/events/etc..', my temptation is always to think that he/she is playing whit a very well-known topic to stipulate his/her contract with the reader (the same when an author claim to have found `an old manuscripts that tells the story of..'), rather than really putting him/her-self above everyone else, which is a very naif assertion.

[hanriotfran.livejournal.com]

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.

[ephaistion85.livejournal.com]

I think that taken in this perspective, your reasoning is not applicable to historical fiction only. If a writer has to consider that his reader believes what he/she says to be true, then even if you invent a character which has, for example, mental health issues and it is evil, then you will have to take into account that this could reflect to reader considering that mental health=being evil. But to which extent a writer can be charged of this responsibility and how much is the reader to be charged of the consequences of his/her own responsibility (i.e. not distinguishing between fact and fiction)?
I do not think there is any agreement on this, as every person will answer the question in a different way As far as my personal knowledge of writers go, I can say that there are (sadly) really few contemporary writers that write with such a moral intention in mind; I don't think that most of them will portray an historical figure as good or bad because they want to show him or her that way, but that just how they think that character will be functional/enjoyable for the reader (then we can discuss for hours if this approach is right or wrong -I think it is indeed very dangerous in general).

Historical accuracy is completely legitimate, what I called `childish' is when a critic is motivated by the very subjective argument that that historical figures would not have act that way because ...it does not respect my idea of that historical figure; and as far as my experience goes this seems to be the most common motivation to bring down historical fiction. I think here again comes the problem of not distinguish between fiction and fact; I am sure if, for example, bot you and I would write on the same historical character, making sure that we will stick with the facts at the best of our knowledge, we would still probably come to a very different portraits, which would both be, in my opinion, legitimate.
You can be accurate up to a certain point, but when you are writing a fiction you have other things than history to consider. For example, in my opinion the biggest flaw (one of) of Mantel's A place of greater safety is not that much in the characters, but in a ill-designed plot which simply does not work well, it is very chaotic for someone who has not a background in French Revolution and mix quotations and fiction in a really awkward way. I found his depiction of characters much more justifiable in the book than what she said, for example, in the infamous BBC documentary on the Terror where she was stepping out of her role as a writer and acting like an historian: there the whole `sit down child' line was indeed outrageous, definitely not innocent and very dangerous.
In a narrative portraying Saint-Just as the sadistic evil Lucifer firstly is a flaw in the fiction construction as the writer is just using a flat stereotype (the Villain), not creating a character, which should not be just `black' or `white'.
The risk is -and it is a question that I ask myself constantly- is that by setting paramater most fit for historical research than for fiction to prevent the possibility of any historical fiction at all.

(sorry for the long reply, English not being my native language makes explaining theoretical points more difficult).

[hanriotfran.livejournal.com]

Here, we agree completely.And maybe my problem to explain myself is that my English is not great. My replies uses to be long too, because I'm afraid of not being undrestood.

I think that the trouble could be more in the reader than in thw novelist. Sometimes, readers don't realize they are reading a fictional book, and when they read real history books they still have the fictional characters portrayed in their minds. For them, when they read about Robespierre, Maximilien will be the guy they read about in "The Scarlet Pimpernel" or "A Place of Greater safety". Of course, this is pretty common when we thinks about French Revolution movies. For some people, Camille will always be the "goody-goody" boy from "The French revolution; Years of Hope" and "Years of Rage", while for others he'll be the hysterical and childish guy from "Danton", and so on...I suppose that this problem wouldn't exist if people could read history books about French Revolution BEFORE watching fictional films or reading fictional books. Bit of course this is totally impossible. Only a desideratum.

You are right about fictional characters being 100% good or 100%, a thing that wouldn't exist in real life. But people likes to see the characters simplfied .It didn't happens only in history fiction, but in all kind of fictional narrative. In the case of real characters the only thing you need to do to show him as a bad or good person is to magnify the evil or good side of his/her personality to make his/her characterwork in the general plot.

I agree about "A Place of Greater Safety". Again, I could understand the book only for I had read historical works about French revolution before. If not, the whole thing could become very confusing indeed.

I've also watched the infamous BBC documentary in which Hilary Mantel spoke about Terror, and it was really pitiful. But it was quite useful for me too, since I understood much better why she wrote her novel the way she did.