I know about confusing fiction and history, but this phenomenon will never stop surprising me. Perhaps it is only me as a philology scholar, but how can one take a historical novel, especially written by at least one generation younger writer, and treat it like an actual source. Though some writers actually do more research than others, they should be always taken cum grano salis, at least in my opinion. I never take anything for granted, holding personal opinions marked "subjective", but that's me.
On your last thought - I think much depends on what we both call "friendship" and when we mark it as "strong". Personally, I would never ask anyone to be the best man/maid of honour at my wedding and later the godparent of my first child, were it not a person truly close to me, but perhaps you see it in a different way. Returning to history, I've always been interested with young Maxime's school years. Obviously intelligent yet not from the best of families, in a rather snobistic society, which together creates a high possibility that even if he wasn't ostracised, he wasn't very popular, too. In such circumstances, a relationship of a sensitive child surrounded by maybe not enemy, but indifferent school mates, with one fellow student can become strong and survive years. But perhaps you don't like psychological approach (Adlerian-Freudian, I'd say). On to structuralism then. Why, by the love of the Supreme Being, why was non-sentimental, non-trusting Robespierre whose private space was so small that almost non-existing and for whom the Revolution was all life, why was he keeping up with Desmoulins for so long, having friendly contacts with political oponent, with possibilities, yes, but not so extraordinary that he couldn't be replaced. Even when Robespierre became more antagonistic with Danton. From a purely political point of view, he didn't need Camille that much and "should" actually "forget" about him much sooner (come on, "friends" in POLITICS? with a guillotine in a background?). He didn't. He obviously hesitated. The explanation "loved him" is just one explanation, and a very simplified one. Love is complicated. Like hell. Neither of us has to accept Przybyszewska'a direct "slash" interpretation (though in further parts of the novel she writes a lot about mechanisms of repression), but I think that yes, that was something - not necessairly that - between the two, something strong and rare in Robespierre's life. I'd dare to say Camille's, too. And it finished the way it did.
no subject
I know about confusing fiction and history, but this phenomenon will never stop surprising me. Perhaps it is only me as a philology scholar, but how can one take a historical novel, especially written by at least one generation younger writer, and treat it like an actual source. Though some writers actually do more research than others, they should be always taken cum grano salis, at least in my opinion. I never take anything for granted, holding personal opinions marked "subjective", but that's me.
On your last thought - I think much depends on what we both call "friendship" and when we mark it as "strong". Personally, I would never ask anyone to be the best man/maid of honour at my wedding and later the godparent of my first child, were it not a person truly close to me, but perhaps you see it in a different way. Returning to history, I've always been interested with young Maxime's school years. Obviously intelligent yet not from the best of families, in a rather snobistic society, which together creates a high possibility that even if he wasn't ostracised, he wasn't very popular, too. In such circumstances, a relationship of a sensitive child surrounded by maybe not enemy, but indifferent school mates, with one fellow student can become strong and survive years. But perhaps you don't like psychological approach (Adlerian-Freudian, I'd say). On to structuralism then. Why, by the love of the Supreme Being, why was non-sentimental, non-trusting Robespierre whose private space was so small that almost non-existing and for whom the Revolution was all life, why was he keeping up with Desmoulins for so long, having friendly contacts with political oponent, with possibilities, yes, but not so extraordinary that he couldn't be replaced. Even when Robespierre became more antagonistic with Danton. From a purely political point of view, he didn't need Camille that much and "should" actually "forget" about him much sooner (come on, "friends" in POLITICS? with a guillotine in a background?). He didn't. He obviously hesitated. The explanation "loved him" is just one explanation, and a very simplified one. Love is complicated. Like hell. Neither of us has to accept Przybyszewska'a direct "slash" interpretation (though in further parts of the novel she writes a lot about mechanisms of repression), but I think that yes, that was something - not necessairly that - between the two, something strong and rare in Robespierre's life. I'd dare to say Camille's, too. And it finished the way it did.