I apologise. A Hillary Mantel piece is never much of a gift. Don't worry about it. I probably would have come across it sooner or later and then, masochist that I am, I would have had to read it anyway.
I do understand what she's trying to say when she claims her characters wrote her book for her - at least I understand at least two iterations of that sentiment. Many authors claim that their brains become colonized by their characters to such an extent that they seem to write themselves. I'll buy that iteration if all Mantel is claiming is that this is what happened with her and her fictionalized versions of historical figures. If she's merely claiming that the interesting lives of the historical figures she chose to write about makes it easier to construct fictional narratives around them, then I'll buy that as well. But if she's claiming - as she seems to be - that she has some privileged view of the evidence allowing her to get to know the "real" Desmoulins or Robespierre or whoever and that they then directed her writing... Well, I would refuse to buy that even if her narrative was impossibly plausible in every detail, which, of course, it's not.
Who compared Robespierre to Andy Warhol? Because I really can't imagine where that could have come from.
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 You know, I think that may be it; people, particularly of the literary variety, are seduced by her style. I ceratinly was when I first read her as an impressionable 14 year-old with precious little knowledge of the Revolution. You really have to have to analyze her writings to recognize that there's not much substance beneath the style - and even with that, it can be difficult if you're not acquainted with the topics she discusses. Most people, once satisfied that a person knows more about a subject than they do, will simply absorb what they are saying, especially if what they say it in a sophisticated manner - and all the more so if it confirms their world view.
because obviously historical events mirror their own inner political development absolutely. I don't suppose Mantel would be pleased to know that she and Furet (among others) share the same root delusion. At least Furet was aware that he wasn't a Robespierriste.
And what's her ongoing obsession with women's sexual fear? I've been trying to figure that out for years. I think it must be personal too, as I've certainly seen nothing anywhere else that would warrant her over-emphasis on it. I mean, I don't even like Mme Roland much - though her memoirs are an invaluable historical document - but I certainly don't think that the antagonism between her and Danton caused the fall of the Gironde, anymore than Mme Le Bas's non-existent rape accusations caused the fall of the Indulgents.
As a guideline for the reader, I can proffer this: whatever seems most unlikely in this book is not made up by me. She says the same thing in the preface to her novel. Of course, it's patently untrue, and not just for Mme Le Bas. She even mentions one case where she made up something improbable in this very essay: Danton and Fabre's prerevolutionary encounter. Is it impossible? No. Did she nevertheless make it up? Yes. Is it unlikely? I sure as hell think so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 21:30 (UTC)Don't worry about it. I probably would have come across it sooner or later and then, masochist that I am, I would have had to read it anyway.
I do understand what she's trying to say when she claims her characters wrote her book for her - at least I understand at least two iterations of that sentiment. Many authors claim that their brains become colonized by their characters to such an extent that they seem to write themselves. I'll buy that iteration if all Mantel is claiming is that this is what happened with her and her fictionalized versions of historical figures. If she's merely claiming that the interesting lives of the historical figures she chose to write about makes it easier to construct fictional narratives around them, then I'll buy that as well. But if she's claiming - as she seems to be - that she has some privileged view of the evidence allowing her to get to know the "real" Desmoulins or Robespierre or whoever and that they then directed her writing... Well, I would refuse to buy that even if her narrative was impossibly plausible in every detail, which, of course, it's not.
Who compared Robespierre to Andy Warhol? Because I really can't imagine where that could have come from.
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
You know, I think that may be it; people, particularly of the literary variety, are seduced by her style. I ceratinly was when I first read her as an impressionable 14 year-old with precious little knowledge of the Revolution. You really have to have to analyze her writings to recognize that there's not much substance beneath the style - and even with that, it can be difficult if you're not acquainted with the topics she discusses. Most people, once satisfied that a person knows more about a subject than they do, will simply absorb what they are saying, especially if what they say it in a sophisticated manner - and all the more so if it confirms their world view.
because obviously historical events mirror their own inner political development absolutely.
I don't suppose Mantel would be pleased to know that she and Furet (among others) share the same root delusion. At least Furet was aware that he wasn't a Robespierriste.
And what's her ongoing obsession with women's sexual fear?
I've been trying to figure that out for years. I think it must be personal too, as I've certainly seen nothing anywhere else that would warrant her over-emphasis on it. I mean, I don't even like Mme Roland much - though her memoirs are an invaluable historical document - but I certainly don't think that the antagonism between her and Danton caused the fall of the Gironde, anymore than Mme Le Bas's non-existent rape accusations caused the fall of the Indulgents.
As a guideline for the reader, I can proffer this: whatever seems most unlikely in this book is not made up by me.
She says the same thing in the preface to her novel. Of course, it's patently untrue, and not just for Mme Le Bas. She even mentions one case where she made up something improbable in this very essay: Danton and Fabre's prerevolutionary encounter. Is it impossible? No. Did she nevertheless make it up? Yes. Is it unlikely? I sure as hell think so.