I have to say this is one of my favorite novels of all time on any subject. I absolutely adore Mantel's style of writing, especially the wicked humor. I find myself quoting her all the time - just bits and pieces that fit my own life. ("I should prefer not to be an object of general odium, but I wouldn't go so far as to let my preference alter my conduct.")
I would tend to agree that there are certain incidents / ideas in the book with which I would radically disagree. I can't remember any specific mistreatment of LeBas (who is not someone I am overly interested in anyway), but I agree that the way the Duplays are treated, and specifically the incidents with Elisabeth, are totally false. I think Mantel decided the story needed more sexual drama, which is a valid point, so she decided to give it some - including the story with Annette, which I also don't like much (and haven't actually located evidence for). I also think people underestimate the issue of a bisexual main character, even in this day and age. Mantel must have been under tremendous pressure to bring in female characters, even vixens, to grab the female audience. She is a woman who has had a long personal battle with her femininity, so I am not surprised that she has difficulty capturing female characters in a positive way.
I think that you have to take this book for what it is: not a historical text, but a novel - a piece of fiction. As such, I also feel it benefits greatly from the modern dialogue, which is never outright anachronistic (someone in another text referred to the Marquis de Sade as a "prominent sadist" - groan), but extremely readable. In order to appeal to a mass audience, not just to fans of the revolution, this is a very valuable tool to bring the characters to life and make them relatable.
In reply to Estellacat: 1. Obviously since this is a fictional biography of Camille, it is by definition Camille-ist. I actually didn't see it as so Dantonist (more Robespierrist actually) and anti-Saint-Just, but maybe that's because I am such a huge Saint-Just fan, I can take a little off the top. :) I actually think it offers some tantalizing hints about the nature of their relationship - or rather animosity. I have never, NEVER found a satisfactory explanation for what happened between the two of them to take them from friends to enemies. I think it's one of the most interesting enigmas of the Revolution. One of my favorite lines in the book is when Robespierre says something to him along the lines of "you are a professional revolutionary, you had no life before the revolution" and he replies "a little." Wow - ya think?! Prison, anyone? Camille knew Saint-Just long before Robespierre - he knew the background. There IS a story here. (I am currently at work on a FIC on this subject.) 2. Agreed. :) 3. See above. Again, I am not so sure Saint-Just is so "evil" per se. He is a lot less evil than in a lot of other books, where he is just portrayed as Satan himself. 4/5. Wow, I really didn't see the book as counter-revolutionary. Can you give specific examples of where it is wrong and how? I would really love to discuss this even outside of LJ. I love the book but know it is wrong in some ways - this would be really important for my research to take it apart and see what is good and what isn't. Separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Perhaps we can e-mail further?
![[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: 2006-10-04 12:37 am (UTC)I would tend to agree that there are certain incidents / ideas in the book with which I would radically disagree. I can't remember any specific mistreatment of LeBas (who is not someone I am overly interested in anyway), but I agree that the way the Duplays are treated, and specifically the incidents with Elisabeth, are totally false. I think Mantel decided the story needed more sexual drama, which is a valid point, so she decided to give it some - including the story with Annette, which I also don't like much (and haven't actually located evidence for). I also think people underestimate the issue of a bisexual main character, even in this day and age. Mantel must have been under tremendous pressure to bring in female characters, even vixens, to grab the female audience. She is a woman who has had a long personal battle with her femininity, so I am not surprised that she has difficulty capturing female characters in a positive way.
I think that you have to take this book for what it is: not a historical text, but a novel - a piece of fiction. As such, I also feel it benefits greatly from the modern dialogue, which is never outright anachronistic (someone in another text referred to the Marquis de Sade as a "prominent sadist" - groan), but extremely readable. In order to appeal to a mass audience, not just to fans of the revolution, this is a very valuable tool to bring the characters to life and make them relatable.
In reply to Estellacat:
1. Obviously since this is a fictional biography of Camille, it is by definition Camille-ist. I actually didn't see it as so Dantonist (more Robespierrist actually) and anti-Saint-Just, but maybe that's because I am such a huge Saint-Just fan, I can take a little off the top. :) I actually think it offers some tantalizing hints about the nature of their relationship - or rather animosity. I have never, NEVER found a satisfactory explanation for what happened between the two of them to take them from friends to enemies. I think it's one of the most interesting enigmas of the Revolution. One of my favorite lines in the book is when Robespierre says something to him along the lines of "you are a professional revolutionary, you had no life before the revolution" and he replies "a little." Wow - ya think?! Prison, anyone? Camille knew Saint-Just long before Robespierre - he knew the background. There IS a story here. (I am currently at work on a FIC on this subject.)
2. Agreed. :)
3. See above. Again, I am not so sure Saint-Just is so "evil" per se. He is a lot less evil than in a lot of other books, where he is just portrayed as Satan himself.
4/5. Wow, I really didn't see the book as counter-revolutionary. Can you give specific examples of where it is wrong and how? I would really love to discuss this even outside of LJ. I love the book but know it is wrong in some ways - this would be really important for my research to take it apart and see what is good and what isn't. Separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Perhaps we can e-mail further?