Robespierre: derniers temps (2ed.)
Nov. 19th, 2011 08:35 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ephaistion85.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
revolution_frI 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?
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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-21 07:09 pm (UTC)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.