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: 2011-11-20 04:50 am (UTC)I'm writing fictional little tales about Hanriot, but when doing it, I try to make clear to persons who reads me that they are not the real thing, that this is not a biography and I don't pretend to discover Hanriot's real motivations by those writings...Sometimes I have the illusion that I know him better than historians but of course I know it ISN'T true and that this is a fantasy.
My problem with the kind of books like the Domecq's one is that they are not totally fiction and they are not totally history. A little like the cases of 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 suppose is pretty the same I do with Hanriot...but of course my works is by far, less impressive and less great than theirs.
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.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-11-21 09:18 pm (UTC)As for what makes a good historical novel, I'm not sure I have any absolute criterion except not to be manipulative. And I realize this is a potentially subjective criterion and it's difficult to define exactly what I mean by that, but to give an example: take the movie "Sade" (hey, it's a ficitional portrayal too). Briefly, the Robespierriste character is shown being abusive to his girlfriend, while Sade is shown as a character who is gentle with and respectful of women. While the former portrayal especially cannot be termed "inaccurate," since the character in question is fictional, I feel that it is manipulating the audience by creating a false sympathy for Sade and a false antipathy for Robespierre and his friends - false in that Saint-Just, an actual historical friend of Robespierre's, wrote that people who beat women should be banished from his ideal republic, while in Sade's ideal republic women have to be sexually available to any man at any time and don't have the right to say no, in addition to his record of sexual assault (which I think may fairly be called the antithesis of his character's implied beliefs in the film). Therefore the film is giving Sade credit for robespierriste beliefs and blaming the Robespierristes for Sade's beliefs in order to elicit sympathy for the former and antipathy towards the latter. And yes, you could argue that it's the viewer's responsibility to realize that this is just fiction and not to allow it to inform their views of Robespierre or Sade, but how many viewers who aren't historians are actually going to do that? Author's of fictions in my view, have a duty to the public not to manipulate them.
Now that we have moral imperatives out of the way, it behooves authors of historical fictions to follow much the same rules they would follow as authors of any kind of fiction: don't create one-dimensional characters or use artificial plot devices; do allow the story to grow in a plausible manner out of conflicts that arise based on the characters and the circumstances they're placed in. Without taking these guidelines into effect, no work of fiction can be considered good.
Finally, I have my own personal criteria, those which make a work of historical fiction, in particular one focusing on the Revolution, worth reading or not to me (see part 2 of this exceedingly long comment).
(no subject)
From:Part 3 (Sorry! I got carried away...)
From:Part 4 (oops.)
From:Re: Part 4 (oops.)
From:Re: Part 4 (oops.)
From:Re: Part 4 (oops.)
From:Clarification
From:Re: Clarification 1
From:Re: Clarification 2
From:Re: Clarification 2
From:Re: Clarification 2
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Re: Clarification 1
From:Re: Digression
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2011-11-22 03:59 am (UTC)I can't add a single more word to your three message above. They portraits my exact thoughts on the issue.
(no subject)
From:Flight simulator games
Date: 2011-11-23 09:39 pm (UTC)[url=http://www.bestairplanesimulatorgames.net]Flying simulator games[/url]
Nude beach
Date: 2011-11-29 11:27 am (UTC)Uggs Outlet
Date: 2011-12-09 06:10 am (UTC)a739292e1aa17a461130
canada goose jakke
Date: 2011-12-10 01:15 am (UTC)a739292e1aa17a461207
Canada Goose Store
Date: 2011-12-10 01:30 am (UTC)uggs ireland
Date: 2011-12-14 04:43 am (UTC)mnbvcxz3313
Ugg Boots
Date: 2011-12-15 07:12 am (UTC)mnbvcxz3313