Scan barcode
ansl's review against another edition
3.0
Eerder 3.5.
Ik vond het nogal meevallen, het was alleszins beter dan ik had verwacht (mijn herinneringen aan zijn andere boek zijn precies slechter dan ze in het echt zijn :p). Persoonlijk vond ik het niet erg romantisch, maar het is wel interessant om te lezen hoe de encyclopedie van Diderot is ontstaan.
(Langs de andere kant, je hebt wel steeds een kat-en muis spel en dat wordt op een gegeven moment nogal vervelend).
Met andere woorden: dit boek is leuk om eens tussendoor te lezen, maar verwacht er niet te veel van.
Ik vond het nogal meevallen, het was alleszins beter dan ik had verwacht (mijn herinneringen aan zijn andere boek zijn precies slechter dan ze in het echt zijn :p). Persoonlijk vond ik het niet erg romantisch, maar het is wel interessant om te lezen hoe de encyclopedie van Diderot is ontstaan.
(Langs de andere kant, je hebt wel steeds een kat-en muis spel en dat wordt op een gegeven moment nogal vervelend).
Met andere woorden: dit boek is leuk om eens tussendoor te lezen, maar verwacht er niet te veel van.
kleedc73's review against another edition
4.0
In this historical thriller by Peter Prange, Sophie is a young girl betrayed by her neighbors and the church at an early age, suffering through tragedy and religious persecution. In the wake of that betrayal, Sophie moves to Paris and, years later, is working as a waitress at Café Procope, a cafe where many radical philosophers and "freethinkers" meet and confer. Although Sophie tries to maintain a low profile and distance from the cafe patrons, she unwittingly falls in love with one of her regular customers, Denis Diderot, a famous philosopher (who also happens to be married). As the romance develops, so too does the plot of the revolutionaries in the mid-1700s. Diderot and his cohorts are developing an encyclopedia, something that those in power would consider revolutionary and threatening. Sophie becomes embroiled in the scandal and her very life and freedom are threatened (along with her heart).
I very much enjoyed the political and religious underpinnings of this novel. The backdrop of revolutionary France is described with acute and vivid detail and the premise is interesting and historically significant. It is particularly jarring to think that something as basic (in modern times) as an encyclopedia could be so explosive and politically charged. That said, I thought the book was a little slow-starting and the romance between Sophie and Diderot a little bit overblown. Anyone who likes historical fiction, particularly historical fiction involving religion-oriented power struggles,will like this book but it is not one of my most favorite historical fiction novels. If I could give half-stars, I would probably give this a 3.5 but overall I give it a 4 for strong historical content.
I very much enjoyed the political and religious underpinnings of this novel. The backdrop of revolutionary France is described with acute and vivid detail and the premise is interesting and historically significant. It is particularly jarring to think that something as basic (in modern times) as an encyclopedia could be so explosive and politically charged. That said, I thought the book was a little slow-starting and the romance between Sophie and Diderot a little bit overblown. Anyone who likes historical fiction, particularly historical fiction involving religion-oriented power struggles,will like this book but it is not one of my most favorite historical fiction novels. If I could give half-stars, I would probably give this a 3.5 but overall I give it a 4 for strong historical content.
sawcat's review against another edition
4.0
Overall, I liked this book. It gave a good view of what was going on ideologically in Paris, in the fifty years prior to the French Revolution, and you can see how some of the events and the ideas presenting in The Philosopher's Kiss lead to the greater complaints later on. I didn't really know much about Madame du Pompadour other than she was Louis's mistress (and what could be gotten from that Doctor Who episode), so I liked learning about her involvement in helping the encyclopedia come into being.
The novel does seem a bit repetitive at times. But I think this is because when each volume of the encyclopedia was printed, it outraged the church and/or state, and someone was threatened with or was arrested and imprisoned, and faced censorship issues. The editors kept trying to push what they could get away with, so the same things kept happening.
Sophie was a real person, according to the author's note, however not much is known about her, or what relationship she actually had with Diderot, other than she existed and knew one another. As a character, I don't really like her very much. Probably because she keeps going back to Diderot, who reads at best as a jerk. I don't think I have a great affinity to any of the characters. But to me, they almost seem to be secondary, while the Encyclopedia seems to be THE main character, as nearly all of the events covered in the book revolve around it. I also don't think the title helps it much. I half expected it to have a stronger romance, or depiction of it, but it didn't. The romance between Sophie and Diderot is fairly tame in the telling, and doesn't read like a romance novel.
I would recommend this if you have an interest in the French Revolution and the precursors that lead up to it, and if you have an interest in the philosophy of this time period and their influences.
I recieved this book via the GoodReads FirstReads giveaway
The novel does seem a bit repetitive at times. But I think this is because when each volume of the encyclopedia was printed, it outraged the church and/or state, and someone was threatened with or was arrested and imprisoned, and faced censorship issues. The editors kept trying to push what they could get away with, so the same things kept happening.
Sophie was a real person, according to the author's note, however not much is known about her, or what relationship she actually had with Diderot, other than she existed and knew one another. As a character, I don't really like her very much. Probably because she keeps going back to Diderot, who reads at best as a jerk. I don't think I have a great affinity to any of the characters. But to me, they almost seem to be secondary, while the Encyclopedia seems to be THE main character, as nearly all of the events covered in the book revolve around it. I also don't think the title helps it much. I half expected it to have a stronger romance, or depiction of it, but it didn't. The romance between Sophie and Diderot is fairly tame in the telling, and doesn't read like a romance novel.
I would recommend this if you have an interest in the French Revolution and the precursors that lead up to it, and if you have an interest in the philosophy of this time period and their influences.
I recieved this book via the GoodReads FirstReads giveaway
smj322's review against another edition
3.0
3.5. Just a few things:
- I liked the idea of the plot. Interesting and unique. You know, not another cliche Anne Boleyn tale or something along those lines (not that I have anything against stories about Henry VIII and his escapades. It's just a very popular topic.)
- Loved the descriptions of Paris in the 18th century!
- Characters were a bit aggravating at times and I don't think I actually had a favorite character, as almost all of them pissed me off at some point in the novel.
- I hate judging books by their covers but I probably wouldn't have picked this up if it hadn't been on sale at the time of my purchase. I'm glad I did though!
- I liked the idea of the plot. Interesting and unique. You know, not another cliche Anne Boleyn tale or something along those lines (not that I have anything against stories about Henry VIII and his escapades. It's just a very popular topic.)
- Loved the descriptions of Paris in the 18th century!
- Characters were a bit aggravating at times and I don't think I actually had a favorite character, as almost all of them pissed me off at some point in the novel.
- I hate judging books by their covers but I probably wouldn't have picked this up if it hadn't been on sale at the time of my purchase. I'm glad I did though!
lyla89's review against another edition
4.0
Hard to understand..tough to swallow..
I love heavy stories. This novel have lots of deep profound philosophies about religion and education. It makes readers think. Nice read, but you have to be prepared to read this...huhu
I love heavy stories. This novel have lots of deep profound philosophies about religion and education. It makes readers think. Nice read, but you have to be prepared to read this...huhu
arisbookcorner's review against another edition
2.0
Incredible Quote: "Politics is really not much different from dancing. In both instances it's a matter of leading other people. Admittedly not where they want to go, but where they ought to go.' Malesherbes
[...]
La Pompadour: 'How is one to distinguish all the factions at court and in the city? They seem to me a minuet gone wild. The parliament opposes the will of the king; in the church the Jesuits and the Jansenists are fighting like foxes and wolves; some support the state councillor, some the parliament-it's enough to make one dizzy'
'That too is like dancing. You get dizzy only if you concentrate too much on the steps and forget the overall objective. And it's the same in politics: to acheive the least for the many and the most for the few, but when in doubt, everything for onself." Malesherbes pg.67
Long-winded, not all that incredible but I liked the comparison of dancing and politics, two of my favorite things.
I think the author wrote this book as fiction to make it interesting for himself. It's basically a non-fiction work on the Englightenment (its people, the ideas) with characters and dialgoue. Needless to say, the dialogue is stilted, awkward. I'm not sure if that's because it's translated to English but either way conversations between characters are annoying. Historical characters constantly repeat their names 'Do you know who I am? Rousseau', etc. There are very few popmpous windbags who constantly insert their names into a conversation. There is also awkardness in how the main character, Sophie thinks. Again this could be a translation issue. For example Sophie constantly thinks about "her lover". This struck me as weird. Why wouldn't she just think of Didierot by name? Why was he always "her lover"? I also didn't like the all-seeing, third person narration with commentary. There would be sentences spoen by the narrator such as "thank God their mere presence in the city obviated any riotous assembly almost entirely" (pg. 236). It reads as if it was spoken by a character but its only the unknown narrator, I found sentences like that extremely annoying.
The only real positive for me was all the historical information but the long-winded, awkward dialgoue of the characters read as if the author was forcing conversations to happen. Characters waxed on and on philosophically at random times. And constant explanations were provided in conversations that jarred with common sense. If the characters were living through certain events why would one character explain them to another? Ugh.
[...]
La Pompadour: 'How is one to distinguish all the factions at court and in the city? They seem to me a minuet gone wild. The parliament opposes the will of the king; in the church the Jesuits and the Jansenists are fighting like foxes and wolves; some support the state councillor, some the parliament-it's enough to make one dizzy'
'That too is like dancing. You get dizzy only if you concentrate too much on the steps and forget the overall objective. And it's the same in politics: to acheive the least for the many and the most for the few, but when in doubt, everything for onself." Malesherbes pg.67
Long-winded, not all that incredible but I liked the comparison of dancing and politics, two of my favorite things.
I think the author wrote this book as fiction to make it interesting for himself. It's basically a non-fiction work on the Englightenment (its people, the ideas) with characters and dialgoue. Needless to say, the dialogue is stilted, awkward. I'm not sure if that's because it's translated to English but either way conversations between characters are annoying. Historical characters constantly repeat their names 'Do you know who I am? Rousseau', etc. There are very few popmpous windbags who constantly insert their names into a conversation. There is also awkardness in how the main character, Sophie thinks. Again this could be a translation issue. For example Sophie constantly thinks about "her lover". This struck me as weird. Why wouldn't she just think of Didierot by name? Why was he always "her lover"? I also didn't like the all-seeing, third person narration with commentary. There would be sentences spoen by the narrator such as "thank God their mere presence in the city obviated any riotous assembly almost entirely" (pg. 236). It reads as if it was spoken by a character but its only the unknown narrator, I found sentences like that extremely annoying.
The only real positive for me was all the historical information but the long-winded, awkward dialgoue of the characters read as if the author was forcing conversations to happen. Characters waxed on and on philosophically at random times. And constant explanations were provided in conversations that jarred with common sense. If the characters were living through certain events why would one character explain them to another? Ugh.
More...