Scan barcode
A review by arisbookcorner
The Philosopher's Kiss by Peter Prange
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.