Doubtless the majority of the revisionists are not in bad faith, but many have no qualms about falsification and distortion to support their claims and seem unable to resist the tossing-around of epithets. As to their contempt of idealism on the grounds of its danger and immaturity, I continue to fail to see how complacency, corruption, and compromising of principles is at all mature or safe.

Concerning Scurr's biography, I don't think anyone short of those responsible for putting a fanged Robespierre on the cover of the National Review for the bicentennial could find it an apology for Robespierre. Scurr claims in the beginning that she tries to be Robespierre's "friend," but by the time I finished reading it, I must say my thoughts were along the lines of "with friends like that, who needs enemies?"
(The reason I object to this is of course that people will, like that reviewer, be inclined to take her book as a defense, and then think: "See even his defenders don't see him in a particularly good light"--which shifts the center of the debate far into reactionary territory.)