I completely agree. Though I'm not sure I would actually prefer Robespierre as a "bright green blood sucking vampire," if only because I've pretty much seen that portrayal. But, as much of a character assassination as her portrayal of Saint-Just is, Mantel really does seem to have it in for her female characters. They're all awful, unlikeable, manipulative people.
She also openly acknowledges that she finds Robespierre's relationship with the Duplays strange and unnatural in one of her essays - in addition to portraying it that way in the novel. To me it's always made a great deal of sense: why shouldn't a lonely man with not much family of his own want to "adopt" his landlord's family, especially if he plans on marrying their daughter? The only way it doesn't make sense is if you go and make them all completely unlikeable.
On that count, the portrayal of Éléonore bothers me almost as much as that of Élisabeth. Her character in PoGS is pretty much the embodiment of the anti-feminist trope of women trying to "entrap" men into marriage. And the fact that they were never married does not count as evidence supporting such a portrayal either. There are all kinds of more plausible reasons for that, including - what a concept! - the ones given by contemporaries who might have been in a position to know something about it.
See what I mean? I can't talk about this book without ranting either. And I actually finished it.
no subject
She also openly acknowledges that she finds Robespierre's relationship with the Duplays strange and unnatural in one of her essays - in addition to portraying it that way in the novel. To me it's always made a great deal of sense: why shouldn't a lonely man with not much family of his own want to "adopt" his landlord's family, especially if he plans on marrying their daughter? The only way it doesn't make sense is if you go and make them all completely unlikeable.
On that count, the portrayal of Éléonore bothers me almost as much as that of Élisabeth. Her character in PoGS is pretty much the embodiment of the anti-feminist trope of women trying to "entrap" men into marriage. And the fact that they were never married does not count as evidence supporting such a portrayal either. There are all kinds of more plausible reasons for that, including - what a concept! - the ones given by contemporaries who might have been in a position to know something about it.
See what I mean? I can't talk about this book without ranting either. And I actually finished it.