![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why does this exist?
Tuesday, 13 October 2009 00:59I repeat: Why does this exist?
http://revolutioninfiction.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/trompe-l%e2%80%99oeil-imagery-irma-ou-les-malheurs-d%e2%80%99une-jeune-orpheline/
I don't mean the blog, though I haven't yet read anything I thought was particularly insightful, despite the linkage from revolution-francaise.net.
First of all, why does the novel exist in the first place? (Don't answer that. There are probably several decent historical explanations for the phenomenon that is this book, but that would require a good deal more thought and research than a livejournal post has a right to demand.) ...Stupid royalists.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, why on earth does the author of the post on it seem to find nothing wrong with or even internalize the book's discourse? If you think the best definition for Robespierre is "the infamous terrorist," you should really have a better explanation than, Royalists circa 1800 thought he was demonic! I mean, am I the only one who thinks that analyzing this book as historical evidence for what royalists either believed or wanted others to believe or somesuch c. 1800 about the Revolution and Robespierre might be slightly more useful than uncritically accepting the book's premise while patting oneself on the back for noticing a demonic face (not-so-)hidden in one of the illustrations?
...Any overreaction, real or perceived, is probably due to sleep deprivation.
And some advice: Never buy cookie dough if you are not planning on actually baking the cookies. It's just a very bad idea, trust me.
http://revolutioninfiction.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/trompe-l%e2%80%99oeil-imagery-irma-ou-les-malheurs-d%e2%80%99une-jeune-orpheline/
I don't mean the blog, though I haven't yet read anything I thought was particularly insightful, despite the linkage from revolution-francaise.net.
First of all, why does the novel exist in the first place? (Don't answer that. There are probably several decent historical explanations for the phenomenon that is this book, but that would require a good deal more thought and research than a livejournal post has a right to demand.) ...Stupid royalists.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, why on earth does the author of the post on it seem to find nothing wrong with or even internalize the book's discourse? If you think the best definition for Robespierre is "the infamous terrorist," you should really have a better explanation than, Royalists circa 1800 thought he was demonic! I mean, am I the only one who thinks that analyzing this book as historical evidence for what royalists either believed or wanted others to believe or somesuch c. 1800 about the Revolution and Robespierre might be slightly more useful than uncritically accepting the book's premise while patting oneself on the back for noticing a demonic face (not-so-)hidden in one of the illustrations?
...Any overreaction, real or perceived, is probably due to sleep deprivation.
And some advice: Never buy cookie dough if you are not planning on actually baking the cookies. It's just a very bad idea, trust me.
