Don't be sorry; I wish more people would comment on these!
I'm still a bit weirded by Robespierre's sex-for-clan-membership thing that he seems to have going on in fiction. It is a bit of an odd thing, I agree. I think the idea here is that he needs to provide himself with some kind of concrete tie to justify staying with the Duplays instead of going back to live with his sister, but I see your point. I'm very disturbed by the image of Robespierre as Antoinette, I must say. *shudders*
I really think Piercy does a good job of making Robespierre's relationship with Éléonore and with the Duplays plausible. Which is something I appreciate. As for the whole book, it makes some over simplifications here and there that I find irritating, but on the whole it's pretty solid. She really tries to show each character both from his/her own point of view and from those of the other characters, which is one of the books strong points.
The best written sections are probably the ones from Claire Lacombe and Pauline Léon's POV, and I think that's both because she identifies with them more and because we know less about them so there's room for creative license, but the others aren't bad. What I like most about it is Piercy's optimistic view about the Revolution. What I mean by that is not, obviously, that she agrees with everything that went on, but rather that, unlike Mantel, who seems to take a pretty dim view of human nature at the prospect for Revolutionary change, Piercy doesn't view her characters as misguided tragic figures doomed to failure from the start - a characterization I'm beginning to be even more sick of than the reactionary "they were just evil and power-hungry and enjoyed tormenting the poor aristos/king/queen/priests/Vendéens/whatever because they were evil" characterizations, which at least have the merit of being so patently ridiculous that I don't know anyone of intelligence who takes them seriously.
no subject
I'm still a bit weirded by Robespierre's sex-for-clan-membership thing that he seems to have going on in fiction.
It is a bit of an odd thing, I agree. I think the idea here is that he needs to provide himself with some kind of concrete tie to justify staying with the Duplays instead of going back to live with his sister, but I see your point.
I'm very disturbed by the image of Robespierre as Antoinette, I must say. *shudders*I really think Piercy does a good job of making Robespierre's relationship with Éléonore and with the Duplays plausible. Which is something I appreciate. As for the whole book, it makes some over simplifications here and there that I find irritating, but on the whole it's pretty solid. She really tries to show each character both from his/her own point of view and from those of the other characters, which is one of the books strong points.
The best written sections are probably the ones from Claire Lacombe and Pauline Léon's POV, and I think that's both because she identifies with them more and because we know less about them so there's room for creative license, but the others aren't bad. What I like most about it is Piercy's optimistic view about the Revolution. What I mean by that is not, obviously, that she agrees with everything that went on, but rather that, unlike Mantel, who seems to take a pretty dim view of human nature at the prospect for Revolutionary change, Piercy doesn't view her characters as misguided tragic figures doomed to failure from the start - a characterization I'm beginning to be even more sick of than the reactionary "they were just evil and power-hungry and enjoyed tormenting the poor aristos/king/queen/priests/Vendéens/whatever because they were evil" characterizations, which at least have the merit of being so patently ridiculous that I don't know anyone of intelligence who takes them seriously.