montagnarde1793: (OMSBWTF?)
...I've merely been away visiting some relatives and have been fairly tired since my return. Some quick points of interest in my life of the past several days:

- I finished Sophie Wahnich's La liberté ou la mort : essai sur la Terreur et le terrorisme - admittedly, not a very impressive feat, since it's scarcely more than a hundred pages, though she does manage to pack more into them than most authors do in five hundred - and I highly recommend it. Her thesis on Revolutionary violence and legitimacy is one of the better ones I've read: that is, one of the few that have made any sense and taken all facts into account. I can't wait to read her more recently published La longue patience du peuple. In the meanwhile, I'm keeping busy enough with Vovelle's Combats pour la Révolution française, Martin's Violence et Révolution, and the third volume of Margerit's series of novels, La Révolution : Un vent d'acier. More on those when I finish them, though don't expect reviews, properly speaking.

- This weekend I saw Puccini's "Tosca," which I liked, but not unequivocally. Quite frankly, it confused me. Obviously not in the main plot points: you'd have to be really quite daft to support sadistic reactionary police chiefs against heroic Italian Revolutionaries. 

That said, I was somewhat surprised to learn that the original play "La Tosca" was by Victorien Sardou. You know, the one who once met Babet Le Bas and later attempted to discredit her memoirs by saying that sentiment must have distorted her view of Maxime. And other less than shiny things like that. >__< I had definitely had him chalked down for a reactionary, considering he also wrote a play on Thermidor that was so virulently counterrevolutionary that it was shut down by popular demand after two performances. 

Which is why I can't say I understand how he could have written "La Tosca"--unless I have it all wrong and we're supposed to be cheering for the authoritarian police chief who has no problem with torturing, manipulating, and killing people...?

Unless Puccini turned it around. But that seems unlikely somehow, since Puccini pretty much tried to take the politics of the original play out of the opera as much as possible. For Puccini the politics is really a pretext for the emotional drama in any case... Well, you can see why I found it confusing at least, I trust. -___-;

- In other opera-related news. I got Méhul's "L'Irato ou l'emporté." It's unfortunately one of his later operas (1800), so it's not quite as nice to listen to as say, "Stratonice" (1792), although that's perhaps an unfair comparison, since "Stratonice" is supposed to be his best work overall (not counting his Revolutionary hymns, of course :P). In any case, the particular thing about this opera I though was worth mentioning is that it keeps making horrible suicide jokes. I'm really not sure why--I suppose it might be one more thing we can blame on the Thermidorians though. Seriously, there's a whole aria in which one of the characters contemplates suicide because, after all, that's "what one does in such situations." *headdesk* And of course the music to said aria is very nice and catchy. -__-;;

- Another thing: I have found one of the most odious books in existence: it's called "50 Reasons to Hate the French" and I don't remember who it's by, exactly, though, suffice it to say, both authors are from the Perfidious Albion. Basically (and I'm not exaggerating in the slightest here) their argument amounts to: "Hate the French because [insert an entire book full of lies, distortions, and insalubrious smugness] and they've always hate the English." It's dedicated to a certain fictional character by the name of "Percy Blakeney"--that is to say, to the Scarlet Pimpernel. As you can guess, it's filled with all the usual garbage concerning the Revolution and all those involved in it, the Marseillaise, and, in a long series of essays, each more worthless than the last, everything that makes France French. Just. Kill me. Now. D:!

- Perhaps more seriously - since I would hope no one really takes the above seriously - another book I found. You, in particular, are bound to love this one, [profile] maelicia. It's called The Pursuit of Glory: The Five Revolutoins that Made Modern Europe: 1648-1815 and, unsurprisingly, it's by another "historian" from the Perfidious Albion, by the name of Tim Blanning. The reason that this one is more unfortunate is this: it receives highest praise from every English-language newspaper (the New York Times calls it "History writing at its glorious best") and worse still, it made the New York Times bestseller list, which means, if people aren't reading it, they're at least buying it.

And now for the reason that should be considered a Very. Bad. Thing. Here are some quotes from the book:

Page 345: "[...] Back in Paris, the regime was busy eliminating opponents on both right and left. Although its leaders, most notably Robespierre, presented their terrorist* laws in the language of reason, humanity and liberty, this was essentially a criminal exercise. Only when the rule of law had been suspended could psychopaths such as the public prosecutor Fouquier-Tinville, or Robespierre's most glamourous and dangerous henchman Saint-Just, emerge to inflict their dark fantasies on their fellow human beings."

Or this gem, which seems to use the same logic as the above mentioned book, as well as neatly twisting the facts (and Maxime's words) around 180 degrees, to portray Maxime as an imperialist: Page 650: "[...] Robespierre was not alone in thinking that the French people had outstripped the rest of the human race by two millennia and now constituted what amounted to a different species. This kind of arrogance [emphasis mine], which also expressed itself in a rigourously Francophone policy [One hardly imagines that he would denigrate a "rigourously Anglophone policy in a similar context] towards the occupied territories, naturally provoked a strong reaction. [...]"

*You might recall that the word terroriste was coined by the Thermidorians after the fact. Talk about uncritically appropriating the partisan vocabulary of historical figures!

And he goes on, of course, but it's not really worth your time to read any more, or mine to type it. The other really enraging thing about it, is he took this beautiful Revolutionary frame with the allegories and the republican martyrs and the eye of the Supreme Being and all of that for his cover. Just to completely trash everything represented by it. So. Not. Fucking. Okay. D:<

- One more thing: you might be amused to know, in a sick fashion, admittedly, that the Robert Olen Butler, the author of that charming book on the thoughts of severed heads, now has another book out, on the same model, only this time, his subject is the interior monologues of famous couples having sex. The amusing thing to note is that while, of course Capet and Antoinette are in both books, revolutionaries are only worth mentioning when they get beheaded. Besides, Everyone Knows, Revolutionaries Don't Have Sex. Not that I'm complaining: far from it, since the portraits of those portrayed in either book could hardly be imagined in a less flattering fashion (the highlight of the book - or lowlight, depending on your perspective - is the thought's of Joséphine's dog on its mistress in bed with Bonaparte. I must say ,as far as that goes, I wasn't quite sure whether to be revolted or amused - perhaps a combination of the two is most appropriate).

...I think next time I'll just post more from That Book About Le Bas. >.> In the meantime, I really should have put this behind a cut, but I post rarely enough that you can deal with some spam from time to time, am I right? :P


Wednesday, 23 January 2008 20:31
montagnarde1793: (wtfno)

So I just finished typing up that book about Le Bas--yes, that's what I've decided to call it from now on, so mark it well--so I wouldn't have to keep damaging the binding every time I want to look for something in it. Finished, that is, except for Sardou's preface, which I avoided transcribing to begin with... I started it this time, but I just couldn't finish with it. I had really had enough by the point when Sardou started calling Maxime a "monster." Um, no. I feel that I should include it somehow, but I just can't bring myself to type the rest of it. Perhaps I'll figure out a way to scan it without completely killing what's left of the binding...

But is it worth it? I mean, how should one react to the kind of arrogance that assures us that a person--in this case Élisabeth Le Bas--who actually knew another person--in this case Maxime--when he was alive is so blind that she's even wrong about his physical appearance? Naturally, it never occurs to Sardou that it just might be the following description that is fabricated and not Élisabeth's account.

Seriously, look at this:
"Avec le temps, l’image du grand homme s’était idéalisée au point qu’elle le voyait beau. – Sa tête de chat aux pommettes saillantes, couturées de petite vérole ; son teint bilieux, ses yeux verts bordés de rouge, sous ses lunettes bleues ; sa voix aigre, son verbe sec, pédant, hargneux, cassant ; son port de tête hautain, ses gestes convulsifs, tout cela s’était effacé, fondu, transformé en une douce figure d’apôtre, martyr de sa foi pour le salut des hommes !"
"With time, the image of the great man had been idealized to the point that she saw him as handsome. - His cat's head with protruding cheekbones, scarred from smallpox; his bilious coloring, his green eyes rimmed with red beneath his blue spectacles; his harsh boice, his dry, pedantic, agressive, and abrupt speech; how haughtily he carried his head, his convulsive gestures: all of that was erased, melted down, transformed into the mild form of an apostle, a martyr to his faith for the welfare of men!"

And then he has the gall to say "her illusion was quite natural!" Because obviously, she's the one with illusions! I would rather think it the other way around... Think of it: a man reads a few books and thinks he knows more about someone than a person who actually knew him. It's just disgusting and pathetic. It would have been idiotic to expect better from the author of a royalist play--about the Revolution--that excited so much protest in the new Third Republic that it had to be banned after only two performances. But... oh, it just get's worse and worse: "Ah ! que Taine a donc raison de s'écrier que, cent ans après sa mort, il [Robespierre] fait encore des dupes !" ("Ah! how right Taine was to cry that, one hundred years after his death, he [Robespierre] is still making dupes!") D:< And then he goes and cites completely fabricated "evidence" to "prove" that Maxime was a "monster." So. Not. Okay.

*calms down a bit* I know I shouldn't be getting so angry about random 19th century counterrevolutionaries whose writings almost no one reads anymore, but many revisionists have that same characteristic arrogance. There's really nothing that pisses me off more than arrogant ignorance--and there is ignorance in a person who believes everything he reads in the first book or two he ever reads on a subject and then refuses, against all evidence, to believe anything that contradicts that first set of arbitrary beliefs. D:<

...Which actually puts me in mind of an article on the evolution of portrayals of Maxime's appearance and how it relates to the myth metaphorically opposing him and Danton, that I should post....


Sunday, 13 May 2007 14:24
montagnarde1793: (OMSBWTF?)
So, I got some books on the Revolution for my birthday (which was 4 Floréal, if anyone wants to know), and I had a very elaborate post with analysis and review of all of them that I made last weekend. Unfortunately livejournal ate it, so I'm just going to post about them my category, the first being plays. Actually, I didn't get all of these for my birthday; I just figured now would be a good time to discuss them.

If anyone wants anything translated, by the way, feel free to ask!

I'll be back soon with either biographies or novels. ^__^

Edit: W. T. F. But then... from whence: "It is a pity, for example, that more is not said about the female companions of the Jacobin 'villains' in this piece: Marat's common-law wife Simone Evrard, or Robespierre's sisters." Perhaps if books about women in the Revolution followed this advice, reviewers would have heard of Éléonore. Or is that asking too much, I wonder? ...I suppose better they not have heard of her than have them have the opinion of the first play in this post, though.
montagnarde1793: (rousseau)

Though I really should be practicing for my singing contest, I thought, just to prove once again, belatedly, that I am still not dead, that I should post as concerns random items of varying levels of interest. (Please ignore the fact that the preceding sentence makes very little sense.)

I find this amusing--pity it seems to be so true though:

You may write a novel about the French Revolution. You may do it on your head, as the jolly habitual criminals say. The essential principles of this sort of novel are: (1) That the populace of Paris from 1790 to 1794 never had any meals, nor even sat down in a café. They stood about in the street all night and all day, sufficiently sustained by the sight of Blood, especially Blue Blood. (2) All power during the Terror was in the hands of the public executioner and of Robespierre; and these persons were subject to abrupt changes of mind, and frequently redeemed their habit of killing people for no apparent reason by letting them off at the last moment, for no apparent reason either. (3) Aristocrats are of two kinds--the very wicked and the entirely blameless; and both are invariably good-looking. Both also appear rather to prefer being guillotined. (4) Such things as the invasion of France, the idea of a Republic, the influence of Rousseau, the nearness of national bankruptcy, the work of Carnot with the armies, the policy of Pitt, the policy of Austria, the ineradicable habit of protecting one's property against foreigners, and the presence of persons carrying guns at the Battle of Valmy--all these things had nothing to do with the French Revolution, and should be omitted. 

G. K. Chesterton, The Uses of Diversity: A Book of Essays

Question: Why are Americans such idiots about the Revolution? Case in point: *shudders* I wonder whether this is a case of insanity or just the usual drivel people spew at times...

And a note, regarding the American History and Literature course I am forced to take: I hate Wilson. I hate Hoover. I hate Nathaniel fucking Hawthorne. This is, in case you hadn't guessed, because of their stances on the Revolution. Okay, so I would have hated Hoover and most probably Wilson in any case, but it certainly doesn't help, for example, that Wilson's favorite author was Burke. >:(

One last thing: does the following remind you of anything? (Well, aside from reactionary Britons.) "Robespierre, the Democrat leader, as was well known, hated England above all other countries, for her loyalty and her freedom..."

Okay, so I lied. Here's the last thing: don't read the introduction to Rousseau's Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes. It will mess with your mind.

....I'll stop babbling now, I promise. >__>

montagnarde1793: (Default)
....This is infinitely worse. I wasn't going to post it even, but.... Well, you'll see.

From a book called The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism, by a man who is up there with Fouché on the list of people I most despise: Jeffrey D. Simon. 

...May I suggest the writing of nasty reviews? I think that's too good for it, personally, but it's the best that can be done at present.
montagnarde1793: (Default)
Though I am supposed, of course, to be studying, necessity demanded that I interrupt my analysis of the effects of the American Civil War to quote what is one of the most odious passages I have ever had the misfortune to come across in a novel. The novel is, The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette, and comes from the pen of one who claims for herself the title of "historian." I say this, because no one in his right mind would accord it to her after reading this passage. Though it comes from a novel, we are always responsible for what we write, still more for what we publish. Which is why I can assert with some confidence that Carolly Erickson does not deserve the title of historian, though I have not read her biography of Antoinette.

I suppose I've traumatized you enough for one night, so I'll refrain from mentioning any and all other scenes in this book that might have a detrimental effect on you.

(no subject)

Tuesday, 5 September 2006 19:05
montagnarde1793: (OMSBWTF?)

I am SO killing the producers of Jeopardy.

Allow me to explain why:

So my mother had left the television on downstairs and I went to turn it off, right? Well Jeopardy was on and there was a category called "Dictators and Tyrants." You probably know where I'm going with this. If you don't, I wish I was as blissfully innocent as you. But in any case, guess who the 200 category was? 

...Maxime, obviously and sadly. I don't remember exactly how they phrased it, but they mentioned that he was a lawyer from Arras who "led" the Committee of Public safety and "presided over a bloodbath." 

WHY?????? *wails, bangs head into walls*

This is even worse than what they teach in schools; I didn't even think that was possible!


The horror of it has killed me. How will we ever overcome the lies? *weeps*


montagnarde1793: (Default)

October 2014

5678 91011
19202122 232425


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios