(no subject)

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

Hi people,

(I think this is all right under the advertising rules - if not, I will totally understand if the Mods want to delete it.)

Anyway! I'm here to mention that I have nominated Dantons Tod and The Danton Case for yuletide - A Place of Greater Safety had already been nominated, which is great because it's my all-time favourite.

So, lots and lots of potential for revolutionary goodness (or, indeed, badness...) at Christmas, and I thought I'd post about it here in case anyone else fancied signing up for yuletide and requesting/offering these fandoms. Or indeed other revolution-focused books or films: the film Danton; City of Darkness, City of Light - there are lots of other things that could be nominated. I chose my nominations based on level of slashiness between Camille and Danton, I must admit...

I'm definitely planning to request, and probably offer revolution!fic - last year I was given a wonderful Camille/Danton story, which was a pretty amazing thing to wake up to on Christmas day. :)

Comments

[missweirdness.livejournal.com]

slashyness with Camille and Danton? *turns greener* xD I might be interested since apparently besides from sleeping and working I have time to do this *slaps forehead* So yeah for me then ^^

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

Yay! I'm glad there are other people interested.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Sorry, just a question. Do you think there could have been something between them in real life or do you just feel like playing with real people?

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

Do you think there could have been something between them in real life

I don't think it's exactly likely, but one never knows. I think it is certainly possible Camille might have had dalliances - depends also what weight/interpretation one gives to "un vice privé et honteux" - but I suspect Danton was pretty straight. In all the sources I've mentioned there's quite a lot of slashiness, though. Most of all in the Mantel novel, in which Camille is portrayed as bisexual and rather in love with Danton.

However, just because the sources I picked on this time are all fictional, doesn't mean I have any problem with RPS at all, and I take it from your tone that you do - we'll just have to agree to differ on this one.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Ok, I see Mantel's novel is the source of many "issues" ;-)
Basically
1) I'd have no problem with fiction like Przybyszewska's or Büchner's, which are trying to be honest with the real people included in the plot.
2) I admit I do feel uneasy about fiction with takes real people and plays with them without any regard to their real ideas and attitudes.
Moreover, I observe that as hardly anyone bothers to read primary sources and scholarly works, the fiction often takes place of the documented past in many people's historical imagination. Which brings us back to the point 2.

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

There are elements of fiction in any retrospective narrative, actually, whether it proclaims itself to be creative or historical - if the past is unknowable anyway, what's wrong with people doing as they like with it? At least fiction-writers generally admit that's what they're doing, whereas soi-disant historians are just as likely to be driven by personal agendas.

And what does it really matter, even if novels and plays ARE what shape people's ideas most? I myself have read plenty of "real" history too, but that's because I very much enjoy it and have some pretty amazing libraries at my disposal, not out of a belief that it's superior to creative work. I really find it quite hard to see why you're bothered about what people in general read or believe: you always have the option of sticking exclusively to academic history, or even of going back to the primary sources, so why do you care if other people prefer a mixture, or in some cases simply want to read fiction?

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

"I find it quite hard to see what you are bothered about what people in general believe or read".
OK, if you wish to make it the issue of Liberty of Speech...;-) I am not prohibiting you to write anything. I am just using MY freedom of speech to comment...Anyway, this is an interesting debate, please, don't be offended, we are touching important issues.

1) You might be surprised, but I won't deny your accusation that I am bothered by what people believe or read in principle. However impopular my attitude might be for the liberals, I might be often bothered about what people in general believe or read. To give an extreme example: If people believed the Earth is flat or read anti-semitic propaganda, then I feel I have a right to be bothered, don't you think? Call me didactic and paternalist, but yes, I'd be bothered.

2) "There are elements of fiction in any retrospective narrative, actually, whether it proclaims itself to be creative or historical" - Thank you, I have read Hayden White, too. However, from there to "if the past is unknowable anyway, what's wrong with people doing as they like with it? At least fiction-writers generally admit that's what they're doing, whereas soi-disant historians are just as likely to be driven by personal agendas."
Well, having a personal agenda does not mean for a historian the possibility to write that America was discovered by Columbus in 1945. That's the difference that still separates history from fiction, even for the post-moderns ;-) For however postmodern and relativist I may be, I can still criticize Schama for his factual errors or for moving the Robespierre's "Danton, I love you" quote a year ahead.

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

I definitely didn't mean to imply that I felt you had no right to comment, sorry about that - it was unintentional.

There's a huge difference between the examples you give (flat Earth, anti-semitism) and the example we're discussing, viz. the importance or otherwise of sticking to what is generally agreed to be historical "truth" when writing about the French revolution, and especially the characters involved. By way of a thought experiment (as I said above, this is not what I actually think most likely to have happened, far from it), suppose that I did really believe that Desmoulins and Danton were sleeping together - what is it about that belief that would distress you? It's not a contradiction of something that can be proved with absolute certainty (I wouldn't be able to prove they had been, and equally, no one could prove they hadn't), and it's definitely not a belief that would directly harm other people, as in the anti-semitism example.

Having read your other comments - they arrived while I was writing this! - I think perhaps one key difference between our views is that I don't see fictionalization, even very creative, far-from-known-fact fictionalization as a lack of respect. If you see writing that doesn't stick strictly to known fact as inherently disrespectful, I guess that helps me understand why these ideas bother you - it seems like our underlying ideas of respect are very different.

I do agree that historians shouldn't - at least in an ideal world - invent things, but I have very little trust in the idea that people CAN adhere to the truth even if they want to, or that, beyond some things like dates, there is much value to be attached to "truth" at all. I'm sure that if we were to summon Danton, Robespierre and Desmoulins through time, and put some questions to them, we'd three incredibly different sets of answers, even if they all thought they were being entirely truthful. For me, that diversity is pleasing and exciting, one of the best things about narrativizing either in a historical-factual or a historical-fictional context.

(Are you, yourself, a historian? I only ask because you're, as it were, "sticking up for them" and for slightly more traditional ideas of truth and factuality, so I just wondered if you were in the field professionally. I'm not a historian myself, I just read lots of history - my real area is literature, so perhaps it's not surprising that I embrace the fictive.)

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

If you believed that, or if you thought that even if they hadn't done it, it was a metaphore to express their political relationship, I'd have been OK with me. That's why I asked before commenting further.

Thank you for not getting offended. I will write more later.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

http://community.livejournal.com/revolution_fr/95841.html?thread=1133409#t1133409

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

OK, I love being called traditional. I am starting to feel proud of it. The lecture on the difficult accessibility, or inaccessibility of truth is a great intellectual exercise and should serve us all as a reminder. But have you thought what being consequent with what you say -not in fiction, but in history, social sciences and even in politics or judiciary- and giving up any attempt at fidelity, any attempt as the most accurate interpretation would mean? Will the criteria to evaluate a social theory or a particular interpretation of the past be the commercial success or the fun readers have while reading it? Is Schama better historian of the French revolution than Palmer because he sells more? Despite the fact that you can find mistakes on almost every page and despite the fact that he stresses brutality and bloodiness to make it fun for the spectators of the "Scary Movie". Should the eloquence of a lawyer beat the fingerprints, because everything is relative?

What I see as respect for the real people is
1) trying to be faithful to their characters and ideas even in the creative writing. That does not mean one cannot put them into a spaceship and send them to Alfa Centauri in a fiction. Or write a parodical fiction on, let's say, "jacobins at the high school". Of course the writer can do that and it can be pretty good. What I feel uneasy about is to use real people's names while manipulating deliberately and consciusly what we know about their ideas and attitudes to make it "more fun", to "serve our plot". I can give you an example from that "masterpiece" by Hilary Mantel: Babet and the Duplays were real people, and I am afraid the UK-US teenagers who have their access to FR through this "work of fiction" will get a deliberately deformed idea of them.
2) I do accept the writers using historical personae as bearers of ideas and principles, though sometimes it can get very instrumental and manipulative, too. And I feel it's legitimate to point to this manipulation and ahistorical interpretation. To this group, I'd put Büchner (as lucienco brightly analyzes) and even Wajda.
3) What I start to feel sick about what lucieanco called with insight "works in which the authors clearly and consciously distort certain historical persons and events not to make a philosophical or political point (which, though potentially problematic [if the fact/fiction distinction isn't maintained, as we've gone through last month :D], is how half of world literature has come about since ancient times) but just to fit in better with their personal fantasy of the 'soap opera'". I could not express it better.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

Therefore, to get back to where it all started. If the diversity of interpretation is the result of the quest of truth or for an approximation to it, even on the symbolic or philosophical level (incl. the use of metaphore, hyberbole etc.), then it's ok for me. If your Danton fucks Desmoulins or vice versa because you think they did it, or because you use it as a metaphor or their political alliance, or because you want to express and stress Desmoulins' mental dependence on strong figures in his life, it's ok for me. What I feel uneasy about is if that plot does not mean anything at all on the level of either historical or philosophical or even psychological interpretation, moreover, if you evevn find it totally out of character for Danton, and in spite of this consciousness do it just for fun, because it'd be cool to see them having sex. If it's so meaningless, why not to create fictional characters?
You may ask what harm does it do to the real people...Well, let me say that I have seen too many intelligent British and US girls who's idea of the French revolution was based on the fiction in English written on it. That's why the fic authors should be responsible. For many people, the FR and the revolutionaries are still a key-part of their past and remain their political reference.
I might be old-fashioned, but I feel at unease about seeing the revolution and the people emptied of any ideas, and I cannot but suspect the fact that's done from the hegemonic cultural environment of nowadays, traditionally hostile to the FR. I don't see Danton having homosexual sex as a sacrilege, but I am cautious of the emptying of these people, of neutralizing them and their message. It's not puritanism, erotic fiction can indeed be a vehicle of coming up with important issues (Przybyszewska's close to it quite often ;-).
Anyway, I wonder if there are any Henry VIII/Thomas More or Columbus/Isabelle of Castile... Just for fun. Whatever.

[lucieandco.livejournal.com]

Couldn't resist wandering over here from the other thread after being quoted ;)

Without at all meaning to condemn your request/suggestion point-blanc (not least since the French Revolution does not strike me as a 'fandom' overrun by fourteen-year-olds whose knowledge of and interest in the real people and events extends no further than 'oh my gosh so-and-so was so hot' - whereas yes, Henry VIII of all people does have those fans, for obvious reasons (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758790/) - people on this community, even if they aren't averse to the notion of their favourites sharing slightly more than an idea, generally do know and respect What It Was All About, so it's quite possible that this brings up interesting pieces), I agree with Sibylla's worries in general, and especially with this: 'What I feel uneasy about is if that plot does not mean anything at all on the level of either historical or philosophical or even psychological interpretation [...] If it's so meaningless, why not to create fictional characters?'.

I don't disapprove categorically of fictionalised/dramatised history (I don't think anyone here does), nor even, as I called it, 'soap opera' (romance, but also adventure, anything primarily entertaining) in a historical setting (that is, set against the background of a certain period or event, but using original characters).
If (as was/is sadly often the case) a writer has something to say they couldn't get away with if they presented it as entirely their own creation, there is no better guise than 'telling a story from [your era of choice]' - even though this can have terrible effects in the way the facts are perceived by the people who don't realise under what circumstances the fictionalisation happened (case in point, Büchner, who wrote a complex philosophical play and passed it off as a simple historical one that many are still happy to take for fact today).
If a writer is interested in a historical personage and wants to explore not (or not only) the stone-cold facts of their biography but the human behind them and introduce possibilities - backgrounds, relationships, what ever - that aren't proven (nor disproven), that can surely be just as good and interesting, if they make it clear that they are writing fiction that is merely historically inspired. Though if the liberties taken are very many and only the basics remain of the real person, there is no reason the author shouldn't give their character a new name and only acknowledge the inspiration outside of the text itself - for example (I'm sure there are lots), John Banville did this in his "The Untouchable", the protagonist of which is distinctly recognisable as based on Anthony Blunt (famous art historian specialising on Nicolas Poussin, belatedly revealed to have worked for Soviet intelligence, on friendly terms with the English royal family, gay ...), but there are a lot of deviations, too, some of them significant, which, even if he had simultaneously acknowledged that he was taking liberties, would have been irritating (to me, at least) if Banville had called his character Blunt.
But if it's not even that, but purely soap opera/dime novel, and the only connections to history are names, portrait faces, and a few stereotypical attributes, then even if you don't see anything wrong with using history for pleasure alone there is really, really no reason the writer shouldn't instead come up with their own characters and put them in the same setting.
Przybyszewska, apart from meaning better than she did - all three points of 'because you think they did it, or because you use it as a metaphor or their political alliance, or because you want to express and stress Desmoulins' mental dependence on strong figures in his life' somehow seem to apply in her case - can't be accused of this, since she does include a lot of political and psychological exploration, far-fetched though it may be. But there are people out there - less in writing, more in film and TV - who consciously ab/use history in this pointless, trivialising way, and there are audiences out there who forget to question what they are shown.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

3) I do like fiction, even a historical one. I do like Przybyszewska, Büchner, Rolland and Feuchtwanger, though I do not like the Scarlet Pimpernel ;-) But it's not the question of my literary preferences. I do not suggest people should only read historical scholarship. Not at all. That would be boring.

What I differ on is not the question of promoting an agenda through history or fictional writing, either. Because it's inavoidable, however deep, shallow, admirable or arguable this agenda might be. I know it and I don't need to be reminded of that.

What's more unconventional about my stance, is, however, that I don't think being an "artist" or "fiction writer" gives people a card-blanche to do anything with real people. You can disagree, I know my opinion is not very common n the "sell-it-all" times we live in.
I do think real people -dead or alive- deserve certain respect. Of course a writer will always project her/his fantasies or agendas to the historical figures. However, I am not convinced that the fiction writers have the right to manipulate their characters in the sense contrary to any historical evidence. And historians certainly do not. If you end up being a professional writer, and someone later writes your biography, scholarly or fictional, do you think he/she has the liberty to invent crimes or abuse in your life just to make his/her book more "interesting"? I think he/she does not. And that's my point. Sorry, I know it's impopular.

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

4) And "what does it matter even if novels and plays ARE what shape people's ideas most?" Yes, who cares about the truth, after all (as there's no Truth, we can write that, say, Edmund Burke was raped by his grandmother and be happy with it). Who cares about the French revolution? Who cares about real people and real ideas? We just want to have fun, like Coppola's Marie-Antoinette.

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

I hope you don't mean that I don't care about the French revolution - it's possible to care in very different ways about something, after all, and I'm not anti-traditional-history by any means, I just love to have wildly creative alternatives to consider in parallel.

(Not-so-seriously: my dedication to the French revolution is manifested by all the time I spent trailing round Paris this summer in the baking heat - in a wheelchair, actually, since I wasn't too well, and wheelchairs do not get on very well with the Paris pavements! - going from one Camille-related place to another. I think the highlight was seeing his inkwell in the Carnavalet Museum: it was marvellous to think of him using it to write with.)

[sibylla-oo.livejournal.com]

;-) That's a nice sign of devotion to the cause...May I ask you then: don't you ever feel sick if the people you do care about are, let's say, heavily misinterpreted in fiction? What comes on my mind is, for example, Jamet's paedophile murderer Robespierre...

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

As the main writer of Saint-Just/Robespierre, I feel somewhat left out.

[highfantastical.livejournal.com]

Aww, I definitely didn't mean to make you feel left out, sorry! I'm not a fan of that pairing myself, hence the focus on Camille/Danton in my post, but of course the beauty of yuletide is that everything is welcome. I bet you have loads of Saint-Just/Robespierre fans who'd like to sign up! And probably there are novels/plays focusing on that relationship specifically, that would be eligible...?

More French revolution stuff in yuletide = always good, even if it's not my own chosen pairing. :D

And, by the way, I adore your icon SO, SO MUCH. Yay Georges!