I'm really trying to avoid thinking about M****l as she distracts me and causes a frothing rage in seconds, which is rather daft when you consider all that is bad in the world. For my part, I think that's understandable. I mean, Mantel is essentially spitting on the very concept of trying to change anything wrong with the world, both in PoGS and in her essays.
I think the problem with Mark Steele and Marge Piercy is that they're both trying to hard to make the Revolution relatable and in so doing they oversimplify and play up the parallels to modern politics, which denies the Revolution it's complexity and historical specificity - key components of any real understanding of the Revolution, in my view. They mean well, but I think they fundamentally underestimate their readers' capacity. (I will say, however, that it's not entirely fair to judge Piercy on the sections of her novel that focus on Robespierre, because her real strength is in her imagining of the motivations of figures like Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe. I find that she's one of the few authors who manages to treat them in a non-condescending fashion, even if she doubtless oversimplifies there as well.)
I suppose there's Fréron's account where the Duplays are portrayed as slightly stupid dupes unwittingly creating a tyrant Yes, well, Fréron is probably not the most trustworthy source. Then again, there is a place in one of Robespierre's speeches where he complains about (among other things) people cutting down orange trees and depriving the good citizens of France of oranges, so there may be something to the orange idea. Though I feel quite sure that even if Robespierre had been the tyrant of Thermidorian pamphlet literature, the oranges would not have been at fault.
That and I suppose snobbery. That probably has a great deal to do with it. (Also, WTF, Mark Steele, I know you're trying to be funny, but they didn't even have bathrooms in the 18th century; people brushed their teeth - when they did at all - in their bedrooms.) Conversely, it also explains why people don't find the Directoire more ridiculous, along the lines of the contemporary song: "en adoptant un luxe ridicule, ils font gémir la sainte égalité..." Alas.
Would it have been okay if Éléonore had been an aristocrat, because everything aristocrats do is sexy, right? Probably. I mean, look how they gush over Thérèse Tallien, or Joséphine, for that matter. Of course, Robespierre was no Tallien or Barras, and certainly no Bonaparte, which is, I suppose, rather the point.
if and when he did get down to it, it would have been a 'wig off' moment. *lol* Without a doubt. Can you imagine him risking ruining his wig like that? First they complain about his fastidiousness, and then they refuse to understand the logical consequences of it.
In short I think Hillary's a snob. Well, you don't even have to look at her portrayal of the Duplays to know that. Just look at how she condescends to her readers!
I suppose he just stuck up for who he was in with no matter what they were doing to the country or the citizenry. Why is this always seen as such a good thing? Your explanation is certainly the only one I've seen that makes any sense. That it's seen as a good thing is probably a result of people's ignoring Camille's contradictions to stuff him into the "standing up for human rights," as you put it, box. It's certainly easier to fall back on that than to try to understand what was really going on, but I find the more one learns about Camille, the less tenable it becomes.
Plus, I'm anglophone, which pretty much curses the whole thing. You may have a point there. *sighs* Still, even with the fluff, it couldn't be worse than a lot of stuff out there.
no subject
For my part, I think that's understandable. I mean, Mantel is essentially spitting on the very concept of trying to change anything wrong with the world, both in PoGS and in her essays.
I think the problem with Mark Steele and Marge Piercy is that they're both trying to hard to make the Revolution relatable and in so doing they oversimplify and play up the parallels to modern politics, which denies the Revolution it's complexity and historical specificity - key components of any real understanding of the Revolution, in my view. They mean well, but I think they fundamentally underestimate their readers' capacity. (I will say, however, that it's not entirely fair to judge Piercy on the sections of her novel that focus on Robespierre, because her real strength is in her imagining of the motivations of figures like Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe. I find that she's one of the few authors who manages to treat them in a non-condescending fashion, even if she doubtless oversimplifies there as well.)
I suppose there's Fréron's account where the Duplays are portrayed as slightly stupid dupes unwittingly creating a tyrant
Yes, well, Fréron is probably not the most trustworthy source. Then again, there is a place in one of Robespierre's speeches where he complains about (among other things) people cutting down orange trees and depriving the good citizens of France of oranges, so there may be something to the orange idea. Though I feel quite sure that even if Robespierre had been the tyrant of Thermidorian pamphlet literature, the oranges would not have been at fault.
That and I suppose snobbery.
That probably has a great deal to do with it. (Also, WTF, Mark Steele, I know you're trying to be funny, but they didn't even have bathrooms in the 18th century; people brushed their teeth - when they did at all - in their bedrooms.) Conversely, it also explains why people don't find the Directoire more ridiculous, along the lines of the contemporary song: "en adoptant un luxe ridicule, ils font gémir la sainte égalité..." Alas.
Would it have been okay if Éléonore had been an aristocrat, because everything aristocrats do is sexy, right?
Probably. I mean, look how they gush over Thérèse Tallien, or Joséphine, for that matter. Of course, Robespierre was no Tallien or Barras, and certainly no Bonaparte, which is, I suppose, rather the point.
if and when he did get down to it, it would have been a 'wig off' moment.
*lol* Without a doubt. Can you imagine him risking ruining his wig like that? First they complain about his fastidiousness, and then they refuse to understand the logical consequences of it.
In short I think Hillary's a snob.
Well, you don't even have to look at her portrayal of the Duplays to know that. Just look at how she condescends to her readers!
I suppose he just stuck up for who he was in with no matter what they were doing to the country or the citizenry. Why is this always seen as such a good thing?
Your explanation is certainly the only one I've seen that makes any sense. That it's seen as a good thing is probably a result of people's ignoring Camille's contradictions to stuff him into the "standing up for human rights," as you put it, box. It's certainly easier to fall back on that than to try to understand what was really going on, but I find the more one learns about Camille, the less tenable it becomes.
Plus, I'm anglophone, which pretty much curses the whole thing.
You may have a point there. *sighs* Still, even with the fluff, it couldn't be worse than a lot of stuff out there.