You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.08 AVERAGE
4.08 AVERAGE
What can I possibly say that I haven’t said already. Five million stars.
This book took me forever to read, but it was so evocative and I learned SO much about the French Revolution. She is a brilliant writer, and this is the best kind of historical fiction (made so by the fact that I know that Mantel is a meticulous researcher of her narrative contexts). I will never forget what she says in the afterword: when people ask her how to know whether or not something in the story actually happened in real life, her answer is that the less likely it seems, the more likely it is to be true. Kind of a good rule for understanding life in general, especially in these crazy times.
challenging
dark
tense
dark
emotional
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
emotional
informative
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
informative
tense
medium-paced
This book has been on my currently reading shelf for 3 years. I think it's time to call it.
DNF
Maybe when I am older (in a decade or so) I will give it another try.
DNF
Maybe when I am older (in a decade or so) I will give it another try.
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Mantel is such an amazing writer and this is such a carefully crafted book; it's historical fiction because it's set in the past, but it ignores or avoids a lot of things most historical fiction does, and Mantel's narrative voice is really satisfying.
I strongly suspect that this is going to be an unpopular opinion and I accept that; I am doing my best to articulate my thoughts on this mostly for the 3 people that read my reviews (I see you).
Keep in mind that this is a work of fiction based on real people; when I mention someone's thoughts or actions, that's in reference to the book. We can't REALLY know what Robespierre was thinking, can we?
__
I am a big fan of Hilary Mantel's writing; her "Wolf Hall" series is a truly brilliant exposition of the human condition; "The Mirror and the Light" affected me especially deeply (but this is not about that). I mention these other works because I went into this book fully expecting to be similarly enlightened (pun intended); maybe that was a mistake. I was disappointed.
This book is arranged around the lives (and their intersections) of Camille Desmoulins, Georges Danton, and Maximilien Robespierre. Fascinating people. There is a sort of unavoidable truth in the depiction of them as fathers of a revolution that would eat itself; revolutions always do, and there is nothing that anyone (most especially these men) can do to wash their hands of their own culpability in it. Nice. I can appreciate that.
What I did not appreciate about this was the exposition; I think it was too much. There is a protracted description of every conversation or thought these men ever supposedly had with each other or anyone else. Every thought they have is described in detail (including Danton's obsession with sleeping with Desmoulin's wife; he never does). Desmoulins is a lunatic, Danton is belligerent, and Robespierre is neurotic; all three of them are arrogant beyond what might believe to be humanly possible. They all believe they have the right idea about how to establish a government. It is dark, the people are starving, there is blood in the streets, and these men have big thoughts. This goes on for 872 pages.
I just don't think all of that is necessary to arrive at the inevitable conclusion. Desmoulins and Danton vehemently disagree with Robespierre's state-sanctioned terror apparatus, and as such that apparatus turns on them. Robespierre is torn up about it, sort of. They were friends once. How sad, but how inevitable. Even if we did not know how this really happened, it is impossible not to see this outcome coming from miles away.
We know how this story ended in real life. Robespierre's state-sanctioned terror took him too, in the end. The blood sacrifices of revolutions are real. What interests me is whether or not these 3 figures understood this fully--if they knew that going in. There's a wonderful opportunity in this book to explore that, but it never quite happens because we are too busy reading about Desmoulin's hot wife and Robespierre's bullies, Danton's many childen and scars.
Keep in mind that this is a work of fiction based on real people; when I mention someone's thoughts or actions, that's in reference to the book. We can't REALLY know what Robespierre was thinking, can we?
__
I am a big fan of Hilary Mantel's writing; her "Wolf Hall" series is a truly brilliant exposition of the human condition; "The Mirror and the Light" affected me especially deeply (but this is not about that). I mention these other works because I went into this book fully expecting to be similarly enlightened (pun intended); maybe that was a mistake. I was disappointed.
This book is arranged around the lives (and their intersections) of Camille Desmoulins, Georges Danton, and Maximilien Robespierre. Fascinating people. There is a sort of unavoidable truth in the depiction of them as fathers of a revolution that would eat itself; revolutions always do, and there is nothing that anyone (most especially these men) can do to wash their hands of their own culpability in it. Nice. I can appreciate that.
What I did not appreciate about this was the exposition; I think it was too much. There is a protracted description of every conversation or thought these men ever supposedly had with each other or anyone else. Every thought they have is described in detail (including Danton's obsession with sleeping with Desmoulin's wife; he never does). Desmoulins is a lunatic, Danton is belligerent, and Robespierre is neurotic; all three of them are arrogant beyond what might believe to be humanly possible. They all believe they have the right idea about how to establish a government. It is dark, the people are starving, there is blood in the streets, and these men have big thoughts. This goes on for 872 pages.
I just don't think all of that is necessary to arrive at the inevitable conclusion. Desmoulins and Danton vehemently disagree with Robespierre's state-sanctioned terror apparatus, and as such that apparatus turns on them. Robespierre is torn up about it, sort of. They were friends once. How sad, but how inevitable. Even if we did not know how this really happened, it is impossible not to see this outcome coming from miles away.
We know how this story ended in real life. Robespierre's state-sanctioned terror took him too, in the end. The blood sacrifices of revolutions are real. What interests me is whether or not these 3 figures understood this fully--if they knew that going in. There's a wonderful opportunity in this book to explore that, but it never quite happens because we are too busy reading about Desmoulin's hot wife and Robespierre's bullies, Danton's many childen and scars.