It's interesting to hear your thoughts on this book, as while I wouldn't say it's a particular favorite of mine, it is one of the better offerings in English, if not from a literary perspective, at least from a historical perspective (not perfect there either, mind...)
I agree that the style is too modern (Robespierre as "Max" really grated on me too) and often too summary - I think Piercy spread herself too thin trying to write about so many characters over such a long period of time, and would have done better to focus on one or two of them. I agree as well that in the second part especially, the book almost reads like a summary of a more fleshed-out literary telling. I did find Danton rather bland, in particular, and certainly Piercy's take on Robespierre is nothing original (though, as I've said before, I do like her handing of his relationship with Éléonore Duplay). Apart from the lesbian bit at the end, I thought Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe were the best handled, though once again too modern. Piercy didn't really manage to capture Manon Roland's voice, in my view (though ironically this makes her much more sympathetic at times, since she can be very grating in her memoirs). Condorcet was portrayed overly sympathetically as well, though I rather expected this - these days he seems to be everyone's hero.
What I appreciate most about this book is Piercy's respect for her characters and their ideals. Now, sometimes this is carried too far: Mme Roland is largely portrayed as I think she would have wanted to be. There is a difference between narrating from a person's point of view and always (or at least most of the time) making them appear to be in the right. Piercy accomplishes this with Robespierre (often in ways I don't agree with), why not with Mme Roland? Still, I have to give Piercy credit for not sitting down and writing a novel with the intent of proving how misguided the Revolution was and smugly setting it out as an example of good intentions gone wrong, the way certain novelists (or for that matter, historians) do.
As for Robespierre's emoness, I do think Piercy may have overdone it. Certainly she seems to take his probable depression/dejectedness of the last few years of his life and project it back over the whole of it. (It makes me wonder whether she had seen "La Terreur et la Vertu," actually, since Robespierre seemed a bit overly emo in that too.) I had more of a problem with the emphasis on his supposed disconnection with reality towards the end - I think is last speech rather belies that idea, but I suppose that's up for interpretation.
The sex scenes didn't bother me that much. I think Piercy wanted to show us every aspect of her characters lives, I though generally speaking I think she could have handled it better (her portrayals of most of the characters most of the time are fairly simplistic and summary, as noted), I think it's a perfectly valid choice. Granted, showing us everything a character does is not a substitute for psychological depth, but in and of itself I don't think there's much wrong with it. (I'm not sure about the reader-service aspect you see it though - perhaps my imagination is limited, but how many people out there who really want to read about Danton's sexual exploits, as such?)
All in all, I suppose I agree with your assessment. The fact that it's one of the best out there in English says a great deal more about the dearth of decent literature on the Revolution, in particular in English, than it does about the quality of this book in particular.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-01-25 02:48 am (UTC)I agree that the style is too modern (Robespierre as "Max" really grated on me too) and often too summary - I think Piercy spread herself too thin trying to write about so many characters over such a long period of time, and would have done better to focus on one or two of them. I agree as well that in the second part especially, the book almost reads like a summary of a more fleshed-out literary telling. I did find Danton rather bland, in particular, and certainly Piercy's take on Robespierre is nothing original (though, as I've said before, I do like her handing of his relationship with Éléonore Duplay). Apart from the lesbian bit at the end, I thought Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe were the best handled, though once again too modern. Piercy didn't really manage to capture Manon Roland's voice, in my view (though ironically this makes her much more sympathetic at times, since she can be very grating in her memoirs). Condorcet was portrayed overly sympathetically as well, though I rather expected this - these days he seems to be everyone's hero.
What I appreciate most about this book is Piercy's respect for her characters and their ideals. Now, sometimes this is carried too far: Mme Roland is largely portrayed as I think she would have wanted to be. There is a difference between narrating from a person's point of view and always (or at least most of the time) making them appear to be in the right. Piercy accomplishes this with Robespierre (often in ways I don't agree with), why not with Mme Roland? Still, I have to give Piercy credit for not sitting down and writing a novel with the intent of proving how misguided the Revolution was and smugly setting it out as an example of good intentions gone wrong, the way certain novelists (or for that matter, historians) do.
As for Robespierre's emoness, I do think Piercy may have overdone it. Certainly she seems to take his probable depression/dejectedness of the last few years of his life and project it back over the whole of it. (It makes me wonder whether she had seen "La Terreur et la Vertu," actually, since Robespierre seemed a bit overly emo in that too.) I had more of a problem with the emphasis on his supposed disconnection with reality towards the end - I think is last speech rather belies that idea, but I suppose that's up for interpretation.
The sex scenes didn't bother me that much. I think Piercy wanted to show us every aspect of her characters lives, I though generally speaking I think she could have handled it better (her portrayals of most of the characters most of the time are fairly simplistic and summary, as noted), I think it's a perfectly valid choice. Granted, showing us everything a character does is not a substitute for psychological depth, but in and of itself I don't think there's much wrong with it. (I'm not sure about the reader-service aspect you see it though - perhaps my imagination is limited, but how many people out there who really want to read about Danton's sexual exploits, as such?)
All in all, I suppose I agree with your assessment. The fact that it's one of the best out there in English says a great deal more about the dearth of decent literature on the Revolution, in particular in English, than it does about the quality of this book in particular.