Well, exactly. As soon as I wrote it, the other level of loneliness came to my mind. But that would indeed be a completely different story.
Oh yes, the archetypisation is probably unavoidable, but still annoying. I mean, if anyone wishes to argue that 1) Saint-Just was a cold bastard, he/she can still do that without claiming -erroneously- that he had no friends. 2) Robespierre was a cold bastard, he/she can still do that without claiming -lacking any support for such hypothesis- that Robespierre did never have sex.
What I find especially annoying is see young and old historians (or political journalists) being influenced by stereotypes they've got from pop-culture and that seem to have a life on their own, totally independent on any serious analysis of sources. That's not very professional.
![[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: 2009-10-20 09:48 pm (UTC)Oh yes, the archetypisation is probably unavoidable, but still annoying.
I mean, if anyone wishes to argue that
1) Saint-Just was a cold bastard, he/she can still do that without claiming -erroneously- that he had no friends.
2) Robespierre was a cold bastard, he/she can still do that without claiming -lacking any support for such hypothesis- that Robespierre did never have sex.
What I find especially annoying is see young and old historians (or political journalists) being influenced by stereotypes they've got from pop-culture and that seem to have a life on their own, totally independent on any serious analysis of sources. That's not very professional.