Welcome to 1789...

It really is a wonderful review. <3

And no, I haven't! ...but, I've just wiki'd it, and intrigue cannot begin to describe my sudden longing for it. Man. I may have to hit Borders today. Actually, I've mainly been trying to hunt down "The Danton Case and Thermidor" with depressingly little success. I don't suppose you guys would know where to point me? Amazon.com, regretfully, won't accept Paypal. >.>

From:

Thankyou! Good to be here. ^^

From:

I remember that review, I rather liked it. But definitely read A Place Of Greater Safety, yes; not only is it good for being a French Revolution nerd, it's just good. Er, personal opinion. But I read it within the first few months of my discovering the Revolution (actually rereading it now) and it had such an impact on me - even now that I've realised how much of it should be taken with a grain of salt - well, I won't gush anymore, just, it's definitely among my favourites.

As for The Danton Case and Thermidor - took me forever to get to reading them - I found them at the local university library. I'm not a great fan of them, but again, personal opinion, I may be alone in that. :x

Also, I'm terribly sorry if any of this is not coherent, I've just woken up and seem to be struggling with grammar much more than usual.

From:

Oooh! Now there's an idea. *checks* Okay, ahrg, I can't find it there. But what a good idea, anyway. XD & I just ordered A Place of Greater Safety off ebay, so I'm ever so slightly psyched about that now. ^^ It does look to be an excellent read.

All very coherent! Honest!

From:

victoriavandal.livejournal.com

Hello and welcome!'A Place of Greater Safety'is excellent - it's the product of years of obsession and, give or take some artistic licence with some characters and events it's one of if not the best fictional treatments. I got my Danton Case/Thermidor from Abebooks or Amazon for under £10 - won't someone with an account buy it for you? If you're interested in that, it might be a good idea to read Buchner's 'Danton's Death' first - I think every library would have a copy in the drama section - because 'The Danton Case' was written as a response to it, and it's one of the big influences on the perception of the characters of Robespierre and Danton in 20thc cinema, drama etc. Wajda's fim 'Danton' is loosely adapted from Przbyszewska's play, but with the politics and sympathies more with the right/Danton, unfortunately - it's now on DVD, and there are some bits on youtube.

From:

livviebway.livejournal.com

If you can't get it off of Amazon, perhaps you could go a classic route and ask a local indie bookstore if they could order it for you. You might have to pay a little more, but it could work.

If you don't want a copy to buy, but just to read, I've found university libraries usually have a copy.

From:

*beams* Thank you very much! I'm having a look on Abebooks right now. Hopefully that will work out better. ^^ And I'll keep an eye out for Danton's Death! Frankly, I think I'll consume just about anything on the subject.

Though I have to agree, I saw Danton a while back and I remember being horrified by a) yet another French film with our friend Gerard...not that he's not a good actor, but c'mon and b) the rather obvious bias. Still--an interesting movie!

From:

victoriavandal.livejournal.com

Ah, there's this, online - it's an awful way to read a book/play (specially one as oddly dreamlike as this play) and every so often there'll be a missing page for copyright reasons, but may give you a flavour of it http://books.google.com/books?id=gQVtUX7hqUQC&dq=the+danton+case&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=OgU0MHZcpZ&sig=y55lNgqUvaga_Ftye2c1vogkIH0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP7,M1
I saw an adaptation of The Danton Affair onstage, which had Brian Cox and Ian McDiarmid in it (or, the original Hannibal Lecktor and the Emperor of the Universe, as U.S. cinemagoers probably know them!) - Brian Cox also played Danton in 'Danton's Death' back in 1981 (too long ago for me) : I preferred Cox's performance to Depardieu's, because Cox came across as more intelligent (Gerard is a bit bovine!). I do like the film, though, despite all the issues I have with it - it does still have enough of the play in it to make it ambiguous - maybe more ambiguous than Wajda intended?

From:

Welcome.

I have to express a different opinion than those previously offerred on A Place of Greater Safety. I think it's well-written, but twists events to far too great a degree for me to recommend it to someone who's not so extremely intimate with those events as to be able to detect when her interpretations are not reasonable conclusions to draw from available evidence, but rather, as

victoriavandal puts it, "artistic license."

It would probably literally take me a year to analyze every little detail of that novel (to compare it to primary sources and historians' accounts based on them), so I'm not going to do that, but I will tell you a few things to look out for, if you read it before having taken a more in-depth look at non-fiction.

The most important general aspect to observe about Mantel is that she calls herself a Robespierriste, but acts more like a Dantoniste. Be on the look out for how she portrays Robespierriste characters as opposed to Dantoniste ones. More largely - and this is probably due more to her outlook on life in genral than anything else - she paints a very bleak picture of the Revolution from the beginning... It's clear she takes a rather dim view of human nature.

So why does any of this matter? Well, because she's such an engaging writer, it's quite easy to take the novel, however fiction one might know it be on an intellectual level, for, if not truth, then at least a plausible interpretation of events. This is why I urge you so strongly to get as good an idea as you can of those events before reading her, because if you read novels - and this one especially - before you read history, it really does end up coloring your reactions to anything you read afterward, at least for a rather long time afterward. I speak from personal experience here.

("The Danton Case" and "Thermidor" suffer from serious problems in this vein as well, I should mention--i.e. it's interpretations are most often anachronistic.)

I want to reiterate, I am not saying you should never read any of these books. I'm only recommending that you inform yourself a bit more first.

Good luck!

From:

Thanks! I took a look at my university library, but sadly, they don't. I'll keep having a poke around. Silly Australia! >.

From:

Haaa, thankyou! I have taken a look at that and I think the play looks absolutely intriguing, but as you say, a ghastly way to read it. XD

You are right about Gerard Depardieu. XD "Bovine" is the perfect word to describe him, and perhaps why I couldn't fit him and his character together as perfectly as I wanted to. My viewing of Danton was probably not the best--classroom situations are generally not excellent for this kind of thing--so I may have to watch it again, and see what I get a second time round. ^^

From:

Thank you very much for such a long and well worded welcome. ^^ Also, your criticisms sound very valid to me. Is there any non-fiction that you would specifically recommend as an excellent way to counter A Place of Greater Safety?. When I read the latter, I will, of course, try to take it with that famous grain of salt, but I know my imagination too well, so I think it might be best if I take your advice and read a little bit more about the factual side of things. I do have a fairly reasonable knowledge about the French Revolution from my French education and the fact that I use it as an essay topic every possible chance I get, but I certainly wouldn't mind getting more in depth, especially since I tended to look into the Enlightenment and the philosophes more than I did Robespierre, Danton, etc. etc. etc.

On a side note, however, I find historical representations--and literary ones--of this tumultuous period just as interesting as factual ones, if that makes any sense. The modern attitude towards the French Revolution is somehow just as fascinating as the French Revolution itself. Hopefully A Place of Greater Safety and The Danton Case and Thermidor should be quite enlightening in this regard, bias aside (or rather, bias quite pertinent to the matter!).

Thank you again for your advice. ^^

From:

I'm glad I could be of help. I know I at times come across as a bit intense and rambly, so I'm especially glad you took my point.

As far as recommendations, I could make a whole list, but it would probably be more useful just to refer you to the invaluable site, royet.org. There, you can find not only articles and a great many primary source documents, you can also find many excellent recommendations for further reading. Really, you can't go wrong there.

And certainly, the history of representation is often quite as interesting as the history of events, which is why I'm far from discouraging the reading of fiction on the subject. It's just best to be able to separate, if not truth from fiction, at least what a historian or a primary source might tell you from the novelist or playwright's imaginings.

I should also add--not to vaunt myself in particular--that I've posted, both here and on my own journal that you might find of interest, regarding both the history of the Revolution and its portrayal.

From:

wolfshadow713.livejournal.com

I read A Place of Greater Safety over the summer and I enjoyed it. I don't totally agree with all aspects of the characterization, but that I guess is a risk you always run when reading historical fiction set in an era you read a lot of nonfic about. But, when I could forget my preconceived notions about the characters and events and read it as literature, it was quite enjoyable. (Here I do not mean to imply that the characterization was always wildly inaccurate, but that, aside from the liberties taken in historical fiction, interpretations of the various revolutionary personalities is rather varied person to person.) As a piece of literature, I found it quite fascinating in that I would not have expected the shifts in tense and style to work as well as they did. And, as a piece of historical fiction, the use of dramatic irony is quite effective--one of those cases in which, because everyone knows the outcome of your story, you might as well use some foreshadowing.
Estellacat, I agree that A Place of Greater Safety does not come across as terribly Robespierrist (though as I can hardly be considered a Robespierrist myself, it is not surprising that I would not see it in that light)--Camille Desmoulins seemed the most sympathetic of the major characters in the text and Robespierre actually seemed the most ignored.
I'm sorry. I digress. I am extremely fascinated by the mechanics of the novel, but a post about that really belongs elsewhere.

Anyway, welcome to the community!

From:

hanriotfran.livejournal.com

I agree with Wolfshadow713...Even if I don't agree with 100% of characterization of "A Place of Greater Safety", it's a must in all French Revolution's fans reading.

You simply MUST go and read it...Hillary Mantel is a very gifted writer and she could gasp the time she wrote about in both most important aspects: cultural and social ones...

Oh..Please, read it if you can! You'll like almost all of the characters there and you'll feel that all of them were your friends since...forever!

HanriotFran (Vanesa)

From:

I thought you might have something to this effect. ;D Of course, I recommend the novel on the basis of literary merit, agree with you for the most part. And yes, it is very bleak, although (if this makes sense) for the most part in a way that I still find fairly refreshing compared to the usual blood and guts version of the Revolution (oh, but it does have it's faults).

Also, on the positive side of her characterisation, I think it's the only piece of fiction I've found thus far that comes even remotely close to a decent representation of Danton, which I do greatly appreciate. Although maybe nobody cares but me.

From:

wolfshadow713.livejournal.com

What I think makes the novel most worth reading is its ability to convey atmosphere and details...I'm not quite sure how to discribe...of the revolution in a more visceral way. The specter of the Terror (and then, of the trial of the Indulgents) is constantly in the background, and yet, the early hopeful days of the Revolution are still presented so vibrantly. In other words, it sort of forces one to consider the Revolution in a more visceral and emotional light than one might otherwise, reading non-fiction.

Also, it has some of the best blunt yet haunting foreshadowing I've seen: "That was Paris, July 1775. In Troyes, Georges-Jacques Danton was about hfaway through is life. His relatives did not know this, of course."
This should seem overdone, and yet it is wonderfully effective.

From:

A Place of Greater Safety is obviously better than most literary treatments in English, I'll grant that, but as an introduction to Revolutionary history I'd say it's even more insidious, because it's much more plausible than say, The Scarlet Pimpernel. I certainly see what you mean about the bleakness being preferable to that--I don't think Mantel's Revolutionary France is bleak because it's Revolutionary France. Rather, I think, judging by her other work, that she just has a bleak worldview generally.

You're right there too; I don't think she does too badly with Danton. I prefer Margerit's portrayal, but then, I don't like Danton much--and of course, in La Révolution we don't get Danton's (or any historical figures') point of view, so it's really a completely different representation.

From:

Estellacat, I agree that A Place of Greater Safety does not come across as terribly Robespierrist (though as I can hardly be considered a Robespierrist myself, it is not surprising that I would not see it in that light)--Camille Desmoulins seemed the most sympathetic of the major characters in the text and Robespierre actually seemed the most ignored.
I agree entirely. Just to clarify, I don't think it necessarily should have been Robespierriste--I would have preferred it, but far be it for me to censor anyone--I just think it's odd that Hilary Mantel would advertise herself as Robespierriste. Unless by Robespierriste she means someone who recognizes that Robespierre was not, in fact, a Bloodthirsty Dictator. *shrugs*

From:

wolfshadow713.livejournal.com

I think what it comes down to is that it would be very hard to make a novel structured as A Place of Greater Safety is a robespierrist--in terms of being anti-dantonist, at least--work. With large segments of the book told from the POVs of Danton and Camille, it is hard to keep them, particularly Camille, from becoming sympathetic while still letting the characters "speak for themselves." This is particularly true when we get to their trial, which is extremely difficult to portray as a fair event. In other words, the text is not totally robespierrist because it gives a fair portrayal of Camille and Danton, not because it attacks Robespierre. As I stated before, Robespierre is a bit glossed over, so perhaps if we spent more time seing the story from his POV, it would seem more classically Robespierrist. (That said, probably due to my own sympathies, I have difficulty picturing what an overtly Robespierrist A Place of Greater Safety would read like.)

From:

Well, it wouldn't end with the fall of the factions, for one thing... That said, I can very easily imagine a Robespierriste treatment of that period, or any period in the Revolution, mostly because I've read them, both in works of fiction and historical interpretations.

(In fact, the fall of the factions is not typically the issue that Robespierristes--and I'm especially thinking of historians here--have traditionally had the most trouble with. In fact, post-19th century, it's not been an issue that most serious historians I've read have had much of a problem with either, though some novelists still do. It's usually a pretty Dantoniste trope that the Revolution was doomed from the time of Danton's execution.)

I agree about the point of view issue though; unless you're trying quite deliberately to make your point-of-view characters unsympathetic, they generally come off better than they might from an outside viewpoint.

From:

Ahem. Sorry for double-commenting, as the cut-off sentence in the previous one might suggest I managed to start clicking buttons without meaning to. O_o

Insidious! I don't know that I'd use that word myself. I read it pretty early on and even at that point didn't have much trouble distinguishing which parts were, er, creative interpretation (coughDuplayscough). On reconsideration, what I think bothers me more than the sort of overarching issues of representation are little details that slipped by the first time, e.g. her rather freeform translation style - I do find it somewhat upsetting that in a novel centred around Camille she completely fails to capture the essence of his (writing) voice – if that makes sense; sure, she keeps the meaning of the passage but, well, makes it sound like it was written by Hilary Mantel instead of Camille Desmoulins! But in any case, I don't necessarily think reading it could do much harm - although checking far-fetched scenes against the actual historical basis is probably always a good idea - but maybe it boils down to the individual reader, in which case - well, there's not much one can do.

...anyway, I feel quite ignorant but I don't know what you're referring to here? But now I'm curious. I personally am rather fond of Danton, but get this very weird sense from most representations I've seen that all the attempts to 'humanise' him make him seem much less human than anyone else. But that's getting off-topic... alas.

From:

P.S. Do you mind if I add you? I'm not sure why I haven't already, I feel terribly rude. ._.

From:

That's fine.

I use it because I believe even writers of fiction have a certain responsibility to their readers when their characters are historical figures. Especially when, like Mantel, it's clear that they're trying to make their "interpretation" of events plausible. I mean, less than accurate "facts" and unwarranted negative characterizations are less than accurate "facts" and unwarranted negative characterizations, whether their extreme and obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about history (The Scarlet Pimpernel) or whether they're made to sound plausible and only people who know the particular historical time period in depth will recognize them (A Place of Greater Safety).

And, one might say, well, it does come down to the individual reader, and it's their problem if they take a novel for fact. But the thing is, many people - and most of them far from stupid or ill-intentioned - will read a work of historical fiction, and not having time to check it against non-fictional works, will, on some level, take away a lot of it as fact. (And again, especially in Mantel's case, given her suggestion in her preface that anything major she's changed will be fairly obvious--because it often isn't.)

Now, again, you might say, that's just too bad for this individual; if they want to not understand history, why is that a problem for anyone but them? But that, of course, goes back to the reasons we study history. Obviously, it's interesting, but more than that, our interpretations of history affect our interpretations of, and thus our actions in, the present. Perhaps, you might again say, this is a huge overreaction; it's just a novel. And you may have a point. But multiply this situation--because we know that Mantel's is far from the only inaccurate and plausible work of historical fiction out there--and you see the potential problem.

Of course, I'm not arguing for censorship; that would be worse than the problem it tries to correct. All I'm arguing for is a little bit more responsibility on the part of writers of historical fiction (and historians, for that matter!), because even the most conscientious reader can't be expected to investigate everything.

Oh, and, by the way, I agree with your point about Camille Desmoulins' writings. Mantel's Desmoulins is not at all what one would imagine from actually reading him. (And some of the things she has him say are rather ridiculous looking at his writings, where, for example, he seems to have a pretty similar conception of the Supreme Being as Robespierre. And yet, Hilary Mantel has him mock that conception. Unless she really believes, as she has Robespierre say at one point, that he only believes half of what he writes...)

From:

I'm sorry, I thought I had mentioned it before. The book I'm referring to is actually a four part series by Robert Margerit, with three fictional protagonists, Claude Mounier, Lise Dupré, and Bernard Delmay. There's a rather complicated story between the three of them, but to cut matters short, Lise marries Claude, who is elected to the Estates-General and then the Convention and eventually joins the CSP; Bernard joins the National Guard and eventually ends up becoming a general. Theirs are the only points-of-view the reader gets, but since Claude is a member of the CSP, the way he explains how he makes certain decisions can often be useful for interpreting the reasoning of historical members of the CSP. (Margerit, I should note in passing, was trying very hard to--with the exception of his main characters and their families, who, though fictional, are still plausible--come as close as he could to accurately rendering the Revolution without changes. Thus, one can speak of his representations more as historical interpretations than fictional constructs, though of course there are elements of the latter. I can also say this much more easily in Margerit's case because his novels only ever examine historical figures from the outside, which is, notably, all historians can do. Things get messier when you try to get into the heads of historical figures--not that I think the latter shouldn't be done; it's just trickier.)

In any case, this is what Claude, after having first gotten on rather well with Danton, says to him: (well, here, I'll link you to the entry I posted on the subject--http://estellacat.livejournal.com/23265.html).

From:

Go right ahead. ^__^ Don't feel bad about not doing it sooner, it's quite all right.

From:

:x Well. I don't exactly think that was where I was trying to go with my last comment, but, er, I'm weak and completely crap at expressing myself, so I'll just drop it. Promise I'm not just trying to be contradictory for the sake of it though! I do agree that writers have a responsibility, of course, and especially in a work like Mantel's where so much of it she claims (well, and so much of it does, at one level or another) come from fact. In short, though, I guess I'm just, er, really an optimist?

Ahhh. And yes. I really don't get a sense of Camille being nearly so, um, bitter, I guess, as she portrays him; but then, I think the same goes for everyone else in the novel... sometimes at least it works to a nice effect, other times she goes a bit overboard with the lavish disillusionment.

From:

You might have, and I might have missed it! It does sound quite interesting - I will keep that in mind for the unspecified future time when I have a lot of free time (it's bound to happen eventually!) and have sufficiently improved my French reading speed... ahaha. From the excerpt you linked to, it seems like an interesting approach to analysing the actual historical figures. Ambivalent as to whether I agree with the point of the passage itself.

From:

Added. :D Although now I have to give you the obligatory warning about how uninteresting I am etc...

From:

Oh, okay, You can just ignore my ranting in any case. Nothing I write early in the morning makes sense. -__-; I tend to be pessimistic about these things because of personal experience; if I hadn't done *way* more reading about the Revolution after reading A Place of Greater Safety, I wouldn't necessarily have believed everything in it was accurate, but it would have become my point of reference. And I don't think I'm particularly uncritical either. There's just not enough time, as I said, to investigate everything. :/

I definitely agree about the bitterness. They already seem bitter, even in '89, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense--at least not checked against contemporary accounts of how optimistic everyone was at the very least in 1789-90. Then again, I'm not sure Mantel's French is particularly good. Case-in-point (though perhaps I'm being a bit on the harsh side): http://estellacat.livejournal.com/30589.html

From: