That's the impression I'm under - that, grotesque though it may seem, given the often far-fetched claims and conclusions her plays make, she herself did believe that her vision of the men and events was as true as if she had been a witness, and that she never consciously altered anything to make a certain point (which, whether one agrees with the point in question or not - or thinks they shouldn't have ab/used historical scenes to get it across - is what Büchner did, even what Wajda did, each using the 'stage' of the revolution to vent their own frustrations), and even less for sheer entertainment value.
It's known that Przybyszewska had a love/hate relationship with "Danton's Death" and dismissed Rolland's "Danton" for reiterating the stereotypes and simplifications made 'popular' by the former (I'm so sad she died before his "Robespierre" came out, she probably would have had a lot to say about it), but I wonder what she would have thought of 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' (e.g. Hilary Mantel's treatment of the Duplays or Saint-Just). She probably would have recoiled in horror - and yet, didn't she do the same thing when (in "The Danton Case" - can't speak for the novel here) she practically reduced Desmoulins to a blubbering baby ready to serve enthusiastically as the squeeze toy for either the supermale Danton or the superman Robespierre (or when she Pyladified Saint-Just, or had Billaud-Varenne, Barère, and Collot d'Herbois bicker about the atmosphere 'loaded with eroticism' that surrounds Robespierre, or how his 'very presence [...] goes to the boys' heads', and so on and so forth) - even if it happened in the purest of intentions? With Przybyszewska, the gap between what she (apparently) thought she was doing (bring An II to life and do justice to the unappreciated and vilified genius of Robespierre) and what she did (apparently) do (project all the processes of her mind - from concrete politics and philosophy to romantic fantasies and frustration at her own career as a luminary, or lack thereof - onto the 'cast' of the French Revolution) is so wide it seems impossible to judge her work by any coherent standards. But it's fascinating.
no subject
It's known that Przybyszewska had a love/hate relationship with "Danton's Death" and dismissed Rolland's "Danton" for reiterating the stereotypes and simplifications made 'popular' by the former (I'm so sad she died before his "Robespierre" came out, she probably would have had a lot to say about it), but I wonder what she would have thought of 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' (e.g. Hilary Mantel's treatment of the Duplays or Saint-Just). She probably would have recoiled in horror - and yet, didn't she do the same thing when (in "The Danton Case" - can't speak for the novel here) she practically reduced Desmoulins to a blubbering baby ready to serve enthusiastically as the squeeze toy for either the supermale Danton or the superman Robespierre (or when she Pyladified Saint-Just, or had Billaud-Varenne, Barère, and Collot d'Herbois bicker about the atmosphere 'loaded with eroticism' that surrounds Robespierre, or how his 'very presence [...] goes to the boys' heads', and so on and so forth) - even if it happened in the purest of intentions? With Przybyszewska, the gap between what she (apparently) thought she was doing (bring An II to life and do justice to the unappreciated and vilified genius of Robespierre) and what she did (apparently) do (project all the processes of her mind - from concrete politics and philosophy to romantic fantasies and frustration at her own career as a luminary, or lack thereof - onto the 'cast' of the French Revolution) is so wide it seems impossible to judge her work by any coherent standards. But it's fascinating.