Citoyenne la traductrice jacobine

It seems it's been a while since I last posted... Not too much interesting has happened since then, unfortunately: mostly I had a lot of work to do. As always, I am a terrible judge of how I will do on tests, as I thought I did fairly well in Statistics but got a 73 (teh fail) and I was sure I made a horrible mess of the Art History test, but I still scraped by with a 91. Go figure. >__<

In other, slightly more interesting news, I am entirely engrossed in Margerit's series of novels on the Revolution (which I've mentionned here before). If they weren't thousands of pages all together I would definitely translate them, because they're brilliant and it's sad that no one has translated them into English before, because they wipe the floor with anything available in this sorry mother tongue of mine. (And I say this despite the fact that, while remaining sympathetic toward Maxime, they don't really qualify as robespierriste. Which, I know, is very strange coming from me, but you'd just have to read them to see what I mean--obviously, no one should just take my word, or anyone else's, on anything.)

Also on the front of novels, a new one on the Revolution has just come out, which I have now, but which I have not yet gotten around to reading, beyond skimming a few of the parts in which Maxime features. It's called Mistress of the Revolution by Catherine Delors. I feel like, as far as pre-reading appreciations of said novel goes, I have to make a bit of a list of pros and cons; at this point the former seem to be winning out, but I'll only be able to say for certain once I've actually read the book. For it so far, the author is originally French, the protagonist's love interest is Coffinhal, who is sympathetically portrayed, and, perhaps because of this, from what I can tell, Maxime is as well (meanwhile, Antoinette is, according to interviews anyway, portrayed decidedly negatively--though any portrayal that doesn't make her out to be a saint might tend to be viewed that way by (too!) many interviews. On the other hand, the protagonist is a ci-devant who appears to be emprisoned during the Terror, which never bodes well. The sources are a mixed bag, but the author's used royet.org and read at least some worthy historians--and as a bonus, she seems to be able to tell a reactionary when she sees one....
...But I'll tell you what I think of it when I've actually read it. >___>

In what little spare time I've had left, I managed to read a rather banal article on what the media are fond to referring to as "costume dramas" (personally, I can't stand the term). Said article commented on the new mini-series on John Adams, remarking that (I'm paraphrasing here): "it's very good, but democracy was not fashionable." My first reaction to this was, understandably, "you're looking at the wrong 'revolution'"... Then of course, I realized they had just referred to Adams as a democrat, which worried me considerably. (This is, incidentally, why I avoid the American press, generally: this is not a aberration, but a rather typical example of the level of knowledge journalists seem to have about the subjects on which they are writing.)
...I did manage to see the first two episodes of said mini-series--all right, so I had a bit more time than I admitted to, though perhaps I should have spent it studying -__-;;--and, much as I hate to admit it, for what it is, it's not bad (so far, anyway; all bets are off once it gets to the 1790s). It's major defect is, unfortunately, an inevitable one: it's told from Adam's point of view. If you do not like Adams, as I most decidedly do not, you might find it's approach irritating, to say the least. But then, you might also think the whole concept of devoting nine hours of air time to John Adams irritating in the first place. But I digress. Essentially, aside from its portraying everyone to the left (I know it's an anachronism, but deal with it) of Adams as demagogic--which, as I've said, is an inevitable result of making a series from Adams' point of view--what I've seen of it is not half bad. I just wish that someone would accord the same treatment to Maxime. *sighs*

Also, this RPG (not the subject matter so much as the portrayal, obviously) frightens me. Exceedingly. Thoughts?

...And I'm afraid the next installment of That Book About Le Bas will have to wait unitl next time (Please do note the last one I posted, by the way--if no one comments it's difficult not to assume no one read it. >__>)

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: http://dialogus2.org/ROB/lescheveuxdemarieantoinette.html *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. >__>