No, I hadn't seen it. It seems I wasn't missing much either. *gag*
I apologise. A Hillary Mantel piece is never much of a gift. I found it googling around four days ago and couldn't get the will together to read it until last night. Then I was reading the comment thread here (http://estellacat.livejournal.com/64950.html?thread=1293494#t1293494) and thought it might be relevant to masochistically dive into what the woman herself had to say.
Here's a hint, HM, it wasn't 35. Perhaps he didn't tell her that, you know while he was writing the novel for her. I'm not much of a believer in the afterlife, but I would hope Robespierre and Camille might get a better one than writing books for lazy novelists who couldn't be bothered to think for themselves. I can sort of see her point if I squint with the whole "in a way, my people have written my book for me," in that a lot of writers speak of imagining characters that take over the plot for themselves. Ms Mantel's problem is she didn't think up Camille and co and therefore is more constrained, unfortunately she seems to choose not to acknowledge this.
The worst is though, I can't disagree with her on everything; novels do have a kind of potential that histories don't have, not to get closer to the truth, but to show how something could have worked.
I agree. And sort of cross linking to the thread that I read but did not have anything smart enough to say on, I really can see why people making programmes on historical figures can ask artists and writers etc to comment as they can have quite thought provoking insights. Or they can be the dolt who made the Robespierre = Andy Warhol comparison But as to why she is regarded such an expert, heaven only knows. She's not even much cop as a reviewer, her David Lawday Danton book review was essentially her spewing forth everything she knew about Danton in a stylish but not especially analytical manner with very occasional references to the book she was supposed to give an opinion on. I don't know if she just has some sort of supreme self-confidence that takes review editors in.
why is it that everyone seems to think that being a former Communist gives one some kind of privileged view of the French Revolution? It seems to have made up a good part of most revisionist historians' credentials.
You know, I strongly doubt it. While Robespierre was writing your book for you, did he mention 'red bonnets being closer to red high heels than you would think' or was that too pertinent an observation for the poor otherworldly dear? It's pretty much an ongoing cliche for rich kids to join the most extremist, ill-considered, didactic "communist" groups, fail to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat by the time they finish their sophomore year and so conclude as per my neo-liberal rant above that socialism is at best a romantic delusion ill-fitted to practical aplication. In their circular logic, this then becomes fuel for the the revolution was an idealistic mistake at the start deteriorating into nihilism and best forgotten because obviously historical events mirror their own inner political development absolutely.
Oh give freaking over woman. Are you now implying that the fall of the Gironde was due to Mme Rolande crying rape too? And what's her ongoing obsession with women's sexual fear? Éléonore clearly is meant to have issues (poor Brount) Lucille secretly lusts for the rawr-sex Danton may I never ever have to write that line again And as for Babet...
Hillary, I have a Mme Le Bas on line four. It seems she would like a word...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: Sunday, 30 May 2010 20:03 (UTC)I apologise. A Hillary Mantel piece is never much of a gift. I found it googling around four days ago and couldn't get the will together to read it until last night. Then I was reading the comment thread here (http://estellacat.livejournal.com/64950.html?thread=1293494#t1293494) and thought it might be relevant to masochistically dive into what the woman herself had to say.
Here's a hint, HM, it wasn't 35. Perhaps he didn't tell her that, you know while he was writing the novel for her.
I'm not much of a believer in the afterlife, but I would hope Robespierre and Camille might get a better one than writing books for lazy novelists who couldn't be bothered to think for themselves.I can sort of see her point if I squint with the whole "in a way, my people have written my book for me," in that a lot of writers speak of imagining characters that take over the plot for themselves. Ms Mantel's problem is she didn't think up Camille and co and therefore is more constrained, unfortunately she seems to choose not to acknowledge this.The worst is though, I can't disagree with her on everything; novels do have a kind of potential that histories don't have, not to get closer to the truth, but to show how something could have worked.
I agree. And sort of cross linking to the thread that I read but did not have anything smart enough to say on, I really can see why people making programmes on historical figures can ask artists and writers etc to comment as they can have quite thought provoking insights.
Or they can be the dolt who made the Robespierre = Andy Warhol comparisonBut as to why she is regarded such an expert, heaven only knows. She's not even much cop as a reviewer, her David Lawday Danton book review was essentially her spewing forth everything she knew about Danton in a stylish but not especially analytical manner with very occasional references to the book she was supposed to give an opinion on. I don't know if she just has some sort of supreme self-confidence that takes review editors in.why is it that everyone seems to think that being a former Communist gives one some kind of privileged view of the French Revolution? It seems to have made up a good part of most revisionist historians' credentials.
You know, I strongly doubt it.
While Robespierre was writing your book for you, did he mention 'red bonnets being closer to red high heels than you would think' or was that too pertinent an observation for the poor otherworldly dear?It's pretty much an ongoing cliche for rich kids to join the most extremist, ill-considered, didactic "communist" groups, fail to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat by the time they finish their sophomore year and so conclude as per my neo-liberal rant above that socialism is at best a romantic delusion ill-fitted to practical aplication. In their circular logic, this then becomes fuel for the the revolution was an idealistic mistake at the start deteriorating into nihilism and best forgotten because obviously historical events mirror their own inner political development absolutely.Oh give freaking over woman. Are you now implying that the fall of the Gironde was due to Mme Rolande crying rape too? And what's her ongoing obsession with women's sexual fear? Éléonore clearly is meant to have issues (poor Brount) Lucille secretly lusts for the rawr-sex Danton
may I never ever have to write that line againAnd as for Babet...Hillary, I have a Mme Le Bas on line four. It seems she would like a word...