#Frev lost media

[pigeonrobespierre]

Soo today I decided to look further into whathever happened to the I Giacobini screenplay - buckle in, I did my best to include as much info as I could find!!

"I Giacobini" (the jacobins) is an Italian screenplay from 1962 based on Federico Zardi's homonymous drama and it is, as of today, a lost media.

The cause for the disappearance of the screenplay from the RAI (Italian national public broadcasting company) archives is either reconduced to the lack of care for the preservation of medias at the time or to the theory which believes the cause to be due to political circumstances.

According to Wikipedia (eh):

...while Italy was in the hands of the Democrazia Cristiana, RAI for the first time broadcast to the public a screenplay «practically entirely aligned with the left and in which Robespierre doesn't come off as a bloody monster but rather like a Che Guevara of reason»

The Democrazia Cristiana or DC (Christian Democracy) was a centrist christian democratic political party in Italy.

The screenplay became largely appreciated by the public, as well as receiving praises from Palmiro Togliatti, exponent of the PCI (Italian communist party) - which happens to be one of the DC 's political opponents at the time.

(source)

Palmiro Togliatti on "Rinascita" wrote that television was bringing a change, since «for the first time it brought a representation of the French revolution inside Italian households»

I went ahead and looked through the archives of Rinascita but found this.

Here I found Togliatti's comment on the screenplay - the below image is a section of it:

The screenplay I Giacobini can be considered an important event of national culture. [...] What matters is that for some weeks a few billions of Italians, have seen and have had in front of their minds a revolution, have been brought to think about about it and to discuss it, seeing it as a political, social and human conflict.

It's then necessary to understand the political contexts of the time both within and outside of Italy:

(source)

...In 1962, under the threat of the cold war, a few months before the Cuban Missile Crisis, a screenplay remarked positively by the leader of a communist party in a NATO country could've raised any kind of reaction.

Thus, the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the screenplay is believed to be caused by some archivist involved with the democristian party.

While this is widely believed to be the reasoning behind it there's not much clear evidence and it's likely impossible to investigate since so much time has passed.

About the screenplay: it was broadcast in 6 episodes, of 90 minutes each, between 11th March - 15th April of 1962 (with a rerun in 1963 after which the tapes disappeared).

It originally featured La Marseillaise, La Carmagnole and Ça ira as well as 4 songs produced for the theater play by Gino Negri.

Audio Recording

In 2012 a man came forward with a (illegally) recorded copy of the audio from the screenplay and sent it over to the Rai archives. The studio managed to recover and digitalize the audios of the six episodes - sadly the video recording is still missing.

Funnily enough, the archive page on which the audios were supposedly made public is gone as of today - but I have found YouTube uploads here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Also here's a doc that wast broadcast on Italian television on the 11th March of 2012, in honor of the 50 years since the first run of the screenplay - (it's in Italian, if anyone's interested I'll gladly sub it/provide a translation)

In short - bless that viewer for pirating the audio in 1962 and lots of hate to whoever lost the tapes..

Maybe I Giacobini was the friends we made along the way 🍊

[usergreenpixel]

Thank you, Citizen Jehad!

Hey, Citizens! It is I, the self-appointed FRev community archivist and I’m here with an announcement that we have our own lost media! Yep, there is FRev-themed lost media! Now that’s an achievement!

First and foremost, allow me to clarify that when I say lost media, I’m referring to its definition from Wikipedia, which is (and I quote): “an umbrella term for media that no longer exists, is missing, or is not available to the general public”. So this means that perhaps it can be found and accessed somehow, but not readily so.

Okay, having clarified the semantics, allow me to present the media piece in question!

*drum rolll*

Marianne Première!

Honestly, the only reason I know about the existence of this cartoon is my habit of scrolling through IMDb in search for review topics.

Based on the limited information sourced from IMDb itself, a couple of French websites and its intro on YouTube, this looks like a swashbuckling story and it is indeed set in Frev so it would be right up my alley... but there’s a problem.

I can’t seem to find this cartoon anywhere. Yeah, I didn’t joke when I say it’s “lost media”. There are 12 episodes on YouTube but they’re in a language I don’t speak (possibly Serbian but not sure) and that’s not even the full series because there were 24 episodes in total, at least in the original 1990 broadcast.

I know there’s also a Mexican dub which I could watch (my Spanish is pretty good) but I can’t find it anywhere either so... that’s a fail so far.

I know our community has several French-speaking Citizens so, perhaps some of you might know more about this cartoon. Any information about “Marianne Première” and/or help with finding it will be appreciated!

- Citizen Green Pixel

[vivelareine]

I’m really sorry that people jump to conclusions about you being a royalist. You seem to be quite nice and your posts are informative.

And it’s true that clergy and aristocracy at large benefitted from the rigged system. Also apparently the economy was already screwed up before, but Frev just had this specific set of precursor circumstances that lit up the powder keg, which was going to blow up eventually.

There is definitely a discussion to be had about all the nuances here, as Frev is a complicated subject.

Thank you! People can be... something, that's for certain.

I love nuanced discussions! I think they're especially fascinating when it comes to this era.

Like I love the fact that we can discuss how Marie Antoinette was personally charitable and kind, but that her personal charity and kindness existed in this almost incomprehensible vacuum of extreme wealth vs poverty.

To use an example I talked about on Twitter, there was an assistant gardener for the hameau de la reine who became ill shortly after being hired, and Marie Antoinette ended up spending almost 2000 livres (a hefty sum--the annual salary of the head gardener was considered a respectable 1500 livres per year, with room and board) on his medical care alone. When it became clear he would not regain his health, she paid for him to return home to England, with a large sum so he could set himself up somewhere.

This assistant gardener's annual salary, had he stayed to work at Versailles? 50 livres, which did include room and board, but still, 50 livres per year.

Now to take an EXTREME example, the infamous bracelets that Marie Antoinette purchased and her mother harassed her over cost 250,000 liveres. It would take 5000 years of this assistant gardener's salary to buy a pair of bracelets that she purchased on a whim. (Now this is an EXTREME example, because everyone considered these bracelets horrendously expensive and extravagant, and it was purchased during her short yet very significant 'wilder' days.)

So it's this fascinating contrast of, her being personally kind and thinking nothing of making sure he had medical care and personally seeing to it that he's not just kicked out of France with nothing and no way to live... and realizing that this personal kindness and compassion existed within this system of massive inequality.

It reminds me of the scene in Ever After (listen I will use any excuse to bring the movie up) where Danielle-in-disguise, after the prince frees the servant from the cart taking them to be indentured servants until they die: "You gave one man back his life, but did you even glance at the others?"

And not in the sense that I think Marie Antoinette would have been like "free this one man!" and ignored everyone else, but the sense that she gave charity, compassion, cared for others, paid for the upkeep of various families and watched over their children's well-being etc etc on a personal level... but she did not comprehend the need for systematic change outside of that very limited scope.

Re; Nuance...

Nuance gets lost a lot, on both sides.

IMO, I don't think people should expect to be taken seriously when talking about history if they are either huffing and puffing about Marie Antoinette being a bitch tyrant who got what she deserved, or if they're wringing their hands and saying Louis was perfect and the revolutionaries were devil worshipers who are burning in hell for daring to revolt.

(And like, I GET... if you just glance at my blog, you might go, oh wow, this person is really Marie Antoinette themed. Must be one of those people who thinks her life was the Sofia Coppola movie. But if you think that and you haven't bothered to read my blog or any of my social media, don't come up at me with some random BS like that and expect to be taken seriously. It's basic common sense and respect.)

[margridarnauds]

💘 🦋 🎀 💞 💝 please!!

Thank you!

💘Is there any posted fic you want to rework/re-edit/re-write?

There are times when I've considered rewriting some of my older fics to bring them in line with my current style, possibly make the dialogue smoother in a few places (Pour la Peine is probably the most obvious offender, since it's been ongoing for so many years), especially with Lazare because I feel like, in the early days, I really pushed the idea of him using No Contractions Ever to make him seem super formal VS Ronan, while these days, I feel like I still keep him fairly formal but still try to make him talk in a way that isn't stilted. Honestly, though, I'm not sure I have the heart to. They're a sort of monument to who I used to be, occasionally melodramatic writing style included.

One thing that I have wanted to do for YEARS is to...fix aspects of Le Cri de ma Naissance -- I don't think it's bad, absolutely not, it's probably still the fic I'm most excited to actually finish, one day (Five years later), but I've never found Young!Ronan particularly convincing, even while writing him, mainly because I have no idea how to convincingly write a non-depressed child. (Young!Lazare is easy, since he's basically...well. Me as a child in many ways. I exaggerate some of my own traits from how I was back then, tone down some of the others, add those little bits of foreshadowing to who he'll become, and I'm fine. Young Ronan? I feel like I make him a little too young, even though, since we're getting him from Lazare's perspective, and Lazare thinks that the ~1-2 year age gap between them means that he's Older and Wiser than Ronan, it makes some amount of sense.) So I'd love to do research on normal children and then write him from there.

🦋what are you most insecure about when you post a fic?

One thing is always people reading a fic and going "Well, that's it. She's lost it. She's gone dry." Like, there's always this fear as a writer that I'm getting worse, that I'm not where I used to be, that my writing style's weaker, and people giving up.

Another thing, and the thing that probably haunts me more these days than anything else is...people finding it. Like, unfortunately, these days, I don't have the benefit of anonymity that I used to have as an undergrad, and I've seen people in the field who have a grudge against another grad student finding their social media in order to laugh at it (I didn't and still don't approve of that, for whatever that's worth.) I've seen people in the field harassed on *here* by other grad students. And I know that people from the field *have* found my social media, including this account and my AO3 (you could ask why I don't just remake it, but...they'll...always find me, I'm afraid, and if not them, someone else, so better to just take things as they are.) And between that and other things, there's always this...kind of nagging feeling that someone is always looking over my shoulder, judging whatever I write, especially if it's something related to the field. I...don't really enjoy writing Irish Mythology stuff like I used to. Maybe one day! But...not now. And it isn't because I don't want to write it, even, it's just very hard to write when you're putting your heart and soul into it and you feel like someone is going to find it and make fun of it just for existing, or judge you in your professional life for it, and I find that when I'm writing for it, I'm constantly trying to write at 100% -- the prose has to be my most beautiful prose, the dialogue has to be my best dialogue, the historical accuracy has to be perfect (Frev stuff I can be a little bit ridiculous about, since it isn't my field, but Irish and Welsh stuff...despite knowing more about it, I'm more confined in some ways), there can't be any room for crack, there can't be any room for self indulgence, there absolutely can't be anything too romantic or too sexual or anything to indicate that I'm not being an absolute professional about it, etc. And that's honestly an exhausting place to be in as a writer, especially when writing is often what I do to relax, and even when I can relax, then there's the concern that people will think that I'm...wasting time I should spend doing my "real" work. Even with my retelling of a medieval Irish text that I've been working on for ten years, it's been shelved for the moment, because I just...can't. When I'm in a place when I can do it again, I will, but...not now.

🎀give yourself a compliment about your own writing

I think that...I put a lot of effort into things; if I don't feel relatively grounded in the characters or their world, I don't write it, I think my characters through, I put a lot of research into things (I would say, roughly, by my estimate, I probably put as much or more research into a given chapter of a fic as I do with a twenty minute conference paper), and it shows.

💞what's the most important part of a story for you? the plot, the characters, the worldbuilding, the technical stuff (grammar etc), the figurative language

I would say the characters -- Plot isn't really all that important to me, either as a writer or a reader, I'm much more character driven. If the characters aren't right, I'm not really likely to enjoy it fully. I might stay on if I'm desperate enough for content, but there'll always be that feeling of "they would NOT!" And, likewise, with my own writing, if the characters aren't behaving, that's usually my #1 sign to take a break from something while, when they're doing great, when I can hear them in my head while I'm typing, that's when I know I'm writing well.

💝what is a fic that got a different response than you were expecting?

Probably Fowl Play? There are a few fics of mine that tend to do really good numbers, but, with most of them, there's usually an excuse. Like, I wrote Door #2 shortly after the game came out, it's for a relatively popular pairing. I'm *happy* it got attention, I'm *happy* people like it, and I'm surprised it did as well as it did, but I'm not shocked. Likewise for something like "A Sea of Wonders" where its popularity SKYROCKETED doing Dracula Daily.

But Fowl Play? It's for a musical that very few people care about, using a crackfic premise that involves an 18th century French count getting chased around by a semi-demonic goose, and it's gotten two pieces of fanart, 311 hits, and 20 kudos, and I still sometimes get comments saying things like "I don't know this fandom, but I like this!"

[au-cafe-saint-just]

st. just alignment chart

(template by @edgysaintjust)

[pizza-hats-of-the-world-1882]

I lost the ask so we're doing this manually! @captainjackwestjr asked for percy blakeney

1. I think this one speaks for itself, he's a beautiful boy who respects the drip

2. This one is directed at frev nerds: no matter how much real history you try to gotcha this 1905 adventure series with, robespierre's still not gonna sleep w you <3 peace and love (also I've recently seen some posts ab modern stuff in the vein of "just cus we personally want vengeance doesn't necessarily mean the government should be allowed to kill people/ if the government can kill people it deems a threat it's going to deem all it political opponents threats" and I think that that would be an interesting lens to view/ adapt the scarlet pimpernel from!)

3. Not that I would ever have a chance against his beloved girlboss Marguerite

4. I mean that kinda is his whole deal lol also he's insane it's great

5. He's a fellow bearer of the curse (adhd) also a repressed sentimental dweeb (Please learn to communicate your feelings king<3 *continues to forget my own advice*)

6. Well it depends on which book your reading but sometimes it's more ab the people involved in the particular mission of the week rather than percy/the league, which is cool cus I feel like you don't see it as often in modern superhero media but also I want to see my distinguished disaster thirty y.old.

7. He's to big but that would make it even funnier, you know he'd agree to do it

8. Free space!: after 'sir percy leads the band' he still sometimes plays the violin (he's still not very good ;-)

9. This one's ab adaptations, cus even tho I love seeing percy do his thing, the first book is about Marguerite and the mystery of who the scarlet pimpernel is, and I would love to see her put back in her rightful place as main character

10. Name one thong he did wrong!!!(side eyes his collapsing marriage in the first book) nothing!!! Never any mistakes!!!

This concludes the sir percy posting hour ~<3

[theravenclawrevolutionary]

A couple weeks ago you mentioned in a post that most of what's known about Robespierre is propaganda, could you elaborate on that?

Of course Anon! I’m always glad to talk about anything pertaining to the Frev! I’m not sure how much you already know about the French revolution, but I know other people will read this so hold on, 'cause it’s about to get long and in-depth as hell!

Also: Just a reminder that I don’t have a degree in history or anything. I simply spend a majority of my free time looking up information cause I’m a nerd like that. And of course, my statement about Robespierre could be applied with different levels of accuracy to other historical figures at the time, including the monarchy. This is just how it applies to Maxime as requested. Any questions about any other aspects of the French Revolution are always welcome. I'll try to answer then as clearly, accurately, and respectfully as possible.

A majority of information commonly spread about Robespierre is that he was a vicious and cruel leader with no regard for anyone but himself. Supposedly, he was so obsessed with the ideas of perfection and ‘virtue’ that he lost any human emotion, rendering him cold, friendless, and willing to sacrifice anything or anyone to get his way. In fact, when I first was introduced to him and the French Revolution in school several years ago, I was under the impression that he personally was responsible for a majority of deaths that occurred during the revolution. That’s what caused me to first look into him. Morbid stuff has always interested me and I wanted to know all about the vicious relentless killer who had no regard for human life and wanted to purge France of anyone who lacked the necessary virtues of his twisted moral code.

As I began to research I realized the picture of Robespierre painted for me by the flawed American education system, the modern media, and a surprising amount of books summarizing the history of the world was incredibly skewed, usually in favor of the ‘poor monarchy’ who were ‘thrust into an impossible position and didn’t mean for anything to happen’. 

In reality, Robespierre was, despite remaining a flawed individual like the rest of us, a quiet well dressed, polite man who was loyal to his friends, cared deeply about his family, wanted to reform the country in favor of the common people, and fought for what he believed in. Maxime had social anxiety and loved animals especially birds and dogs. Oftentimes he left his glasses places and couldn’t remember where he put them. He once wrote a poem about how much he loved tarts. Things made him angry, happy, and scared. The man who played such a crucial part in the revolution was still the same person as the young man who cried when his youngest sister Henriette died at age seventeen and the man who was praised as being a bright student at Louis-le-Grand. He advocated for women’s rights to an education, supported the rights of Jews in France (who were an unrepresented minority at the time), proposed laws in an attempt to decrease unnecessary violence (which he hated along with the war against Austria, the dechristianization of France, and the dangerous mob mentality). Maximilien Robespierre was an actual person who actually felt things like the rest of us. He was no heartless monster who preyed on innocent Frenchmen for no reason.

Now it’s time to point out the wrongs he committed. It can never be a fair judge of someone’s character, living or dead, without taking into account the bad things they have done. Robespierre did vote in favor of Louis XVI’s execution, mistakenly believing that France would benefit from the king’s death. After Capet’s execution violence spiraled out of control, resulting in a period of death known as The Reign of Terror. He also didn’t do as much as he should have to oust revolutionaries with dangerous tendencies and a penchant to condone mob violence. One of his biggest faults was his habit of compromising when he should have stood his ground and standing his ground when compromising would be the better option. His signature can be found on the arrest warrant sent out for the Dantonists, including his friend (to some degree) Georges Danton and childhood friend Camille Desmoulins, who eventually would go on to be executed.

Now the question is, how did a usually quiet, reserved individual become known as a bloodthirsty cult leader? The answer is, of course, Thermidorian Propaganda. For those of you that don’t know what that means, allow me to explain. 

Thermidor was the name of the fifth month on the revolutionary calendar (which was implemented in 1793 and used in France through 1805 ) that spanned from July 19th to August 17th on the Gregorian Calendar. At the beginning of Thermidor Maximilien was to make a speech to the National Convention speaking about but refusing to then name of several members who were corrupt or had committed crimes against the revolution and defending his own part in trying to find them. (Actually, I believe he straight-up named three people, but I don’t remember their names so it’s not important.) Convention members who feared exposure by the speech conspired together to overthrow Robespierre, who was seen as the figurehead of the revolution, (similarly to how the president represents the United States as a whole) and save their reputations. Robespierre and those still loyal to him fled to the Hotel de Ville, were captured by the National Guard, and were sentenced to death via guillotine all within the span of a few days. Those who accused and condemned him have come to be known as Thermidorians and the event itself known as the Thermidorian Reaction.

In order to preserve their reputations, the Thermidorians began criminalizing Robespierre and using him as a scapegoat for crimes committed (and not committed at all) by different people during the revolution. As the common saying goes, “History is written by the winners.” Because they succeeded in their plot against the Robespierrists and frightened anyone who wished to stand up and support their own Robespierrist views, the Thermidorians were able to control the narrative and the light in which Robespierre is presented. As his rivals/enemies they wanted themselves to seem obviously correct and Robespierre to seem clearly in the wrong. Things were not so black and white, so they fudged the information a little to help their cause.

As a result our picture of Robespierre is very different from the actual man. I'd like to say that he did both helpful and problematic things over the course of his time in the spotlight. He was a human, simple as that. It isn't right to demonize him and completely butcher his true self the way the Thermidorians and many historians since have done, but in the same breath we also have to remember all the awful things he allowed and was a part of.

Sorry it got so long, but I hoped I cleared things up for you Anon. If you have more questions, please hit me up!

~Dara

[deputy-vania]

Confession: I cried when listening to La Marseillaise yesterday. I cried so hard.

Sometimes I think my new found passion for the French Revolution is a kind of escapism, because I could read about the people who fought and died for freedom; I could read their stories and sympathise with them; I could imagine what I would have done in that situation. I could ask myself if I would’ve stood by my conscience like them, or if I would have had the courage to die for the freedom of my patrie on the battlefield.

And I call it escapism, because I feel so helpless in face of the current political situation in my country. The internet censorship, the lack of political freedom is more like an inside joke that everybody knows about than a thing people want to change. We post about the French Revolution(because there are frev fans here too)—the website tells us it contains “sensitive words”—we wonder if it’s “revolution” or “democracy” or “constitution” or what—we try to outwit the censorship with some common techniques(deliberately using the wrong character with the same pronounciation/using English/inserting blanks or irrelevant characters in the middle of the word/using screenshot). And that’s it. There are people who try to change things, but you’ll almost never hear of them (because of you-know-why), and no one I have met personally has expressed the idea.

“There is something more contemptible still than a tyrant, and that is a slave!” ——Maximilien Robespierre, 11 Pluviôse year II (January 30th 1794)

I read about the women’s march in Washington. I would love to join. I read about the Dakota pipeline protest. I would love to join. I read about the Romanian protest. I would love to join. And I’m going to study in the US in a year, and there definitely will be oppotunities for me to join protests, for me to make a difference. And I will join them. But it’s still different for me, because it’s not MY country. But what should I do here, where, while people do care about social justice, no one seriously considers changing the entire political system? What should I do here, where serious criticisms of the government on social media will very soon be taken down? (though they do allow certain criticisms, “the very humble criticism such as the monarchy occasionally allowed”) What should I do here, where my mother was taken to the police station and almost lost her job for attending church service in a non-state-controlled church? What should I do here, where I know nobody but myself who seems to care? Who’s there to join me in the protests, marches and demonstrations?

I almost wish I were born 20 years earlier, so that I could have joined the demonstration demanding political freedom in 1989, even if it achieved nothing. But trying and failing is still better than not even having anything to try at.

There must be something I can do, because there’s always something I can do, of this I’m certain. I just have to think it up.

We talk of how the “so-called revolution for political freedom” ruined Syria. We talk about how the “so-called democracy” makes choices such as Brexit and Trump. We talk about how much our economy has developed because of course money is more important than political freedom. We talk about how good our party is because of course a good king is even better than a republic where different political parties can actually compete. And there are many, many people who genuinely believe these things.

We celebrate our revolutionary past, while having nothing whatsoever revolutionary about us. What we are celebrating is at most nationalism. People on tumblr say they live in a Thermidorian age. I feel we are more like living in a Napoleon age, when La Marseillaise is banned. It’s suffocating.

But who am I kidding, feigning this bravado, when I know I am too selfish, too cowardly to make sacrafices such as the revolutionaries did.

And I’m loathe to post this, because as much as I dislike narrow nationalism, I cannot really separate myself from national pride.(who can?) I wish people here would attack the politics more, yet I feel uncomfortable seeing people from other countries doing it.

Anyway. I’m crying again.

Oh, and I talked about this with my parents. My mom: “So you want to start a revolution here?!”(the tone clearly means “are you out of your mind”) My dad is totally the “look at what seeking democracy brought to Syria” sentiment. Because of course, “look at how France turned into a mess and got so many people killed because they wanted freedom, everybody please just wisely live under your monarchy”. I mean, I TOTALLY, TOTALLY don’t want to start a war, and of course we should try to do things peacefully, but it just irks me how everybody’s all like “fighting for freedom might have bad consequences, so we’d better live in a safe and non-free world”.

[usergreenpixel]

JACOBIN FICTION CONVENTION MEETING 36: THE GAME OF HOPE (2018)

1. The Introduction

Well, hello there, Citizens and Neighbors! I’m alive and back with a review, as promised. (Very happy about it too because I missed you!)

Now, to cut to the chase, @josefavomjaaga was the first person who told me about the novel’s existence, which had me a bit intrigued already due to my constant search for new media to consume and review.

However, my dear friend @tairin helped seal the deal and officially put this particular piece onto my review bucket list, as a physical copy of the book (in Russian) was her present for my birthday last year. I read the book back then but, due to all the other reviews and personal life stuff, kept putting away this particular review.

Fortunately, I finally found free time to catch up on the piece and post it, so here we go.

Before we proceed, here’s a link for anyone who wants to download the book in English. As mentioned, it’s available in Russian too, but Russian-speaking members of my audience will need to purchase the epub or a physical copy to be able to read it. I’m not sure if it’s available in any other languages.

Also, this review is dedicated to @josefavomjaaga , @tairin and @frevandrest ! Okay, let’s. Fucking. Begin.

2. The Summary

“The Game of Hope” tells the story of Hortense de Beauharnais, Napoleon’s stepdaughter, and her coming of age journey, including crushes, rivalries, and her life at Madame Campan’s boarding school for girls.

Although I loathe Hortense with a passion, review material is review material and I was still intrigued by the premise, so let’s see how this premise plays out in the book!

3. The Story

Generally, I enjoy coming of age stories and YA novels and, luckily, this one is no exception. It is melodramatic, but it’s justified because Hortense is a teenager and a dramatic person, so her POV having melodrama is expected.

It’s a slice of life kind of story and most political events happen in the background but still realistically affect the characters, which is realistic and very neat!

Also, this is by far the only book where anti-Frev sentiments don’t give me an urge to flip the fuck out, since Hortense lost her father and almost lost her mother during Frev and is far too naive and young to understand politics! Of course she will think Frev is evil and of course she will believe that being noble would be enough to have her executed!

The pacing is great too. There are some time skips but the author clearly knew when to do them and when to slow down. Now complaints here.

If you are craving a story with typical teenage melodrama involving historical figures, then I guess it’s a book for you.

4. The Characters

I don’t like Hortense as a person here, but as a character she’s realistic and nuanced. She has the selfish and bratty nature that would stick way into adulthood, but she genuinely loves Eugene and her friends at the boarding school. Also her resentment towards her stepfather and the Bonaparte siblings is quite realistic, as from her point of view they’re just asses towards her mother for no reason.

Caroline Bonaparte starts off as a rude bitch (also thanks to Hortense incorporating her own bias), but luckily she becomes more and more nuanced along the way and becomes sort of a frenemy to Hortense. Caroline clearly doesn’t enjoy studying under Madame Campan and wants out of there. Perhaps due to my bias, or because we don’t see her POV, Caroline grew on me more than Hortense.

Eugene (I HAVE to mention him) appears later on in the story and, as expected, is an absolute cinnamon roll.

Josephine is idealized in the story by Hortense, but she isn’t flawless and keeps trying to find Hortense a husband in the beginning. However, she also helps Caroline and Joachim marry, which makes their treatment of her later on a fucking dick move.

Émilie, Hortense’s cousin and close friend, is slightly older and already married (not that unheard of back then), but is still a teenager going through the typical motions common for that age. She is more mature than Hortense and feels trapped in a loveless marriage with Captain Lavalette (no idea who that is).

Campan is very strict but genuinely cares about her students. I liked the part where she has The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen attached to the back of a portrait of Marie-Antoinette and flips the portrait when inspection arrives. Simple, but quite clever!

5. The Setting

No complaints here! Gorgeous descriptions that are very much historically accurate, and Hortense’s POV is conveyed masterfully, which aids the story greatly.

6. The Writing

Simple yet beautiful, without diving too much into purple prose territory and doesn’t shy away from mentioning or implying normal things like periods or sex. I can sense some pearl clutching might happen, but personally I think these topics should be normalized so I don’t complain. Also, my copy graciously included translations of Italian phrases, which is doubly awesome!

7. The Conclusion

Overall, an excellent, overall accurate and believable story! I highly recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about Hortense or just looking for a Frev/Napoleonic coming of age story without too much action.

Alright, on this note, I’m concluding today’s meeting of Jacobin Fiction Convention. Stay tuned for updates, guys!

Love,

Citizen Green Pixel

[usergreenpixel]

MALMAISON MEDIA SALON SOIRÉE 14: AT ABOUKIR AND ACRE (1898)

1. The Introduction

Hello, Dear Neighbors, and welcome back to Malmaison Media Salon. So, as I’ve said before, today we’re going to talk about a book by G. A. Henty, one of my archenemies!

Why archenemy?

That’s just how I label authors whose shit I reviewed before. Henty’s “wonderful” book about Frev left a bad taste in my mouth for a long time, so I was understandably mistrustful of any other piece of his.

However, after finding out he has one more Frev book AND several Napoleonic ones and this one (About the Egyptian Campaign, between the two eras), I had to make another review in spite of my lower than six feet expectations. So I went on Project Gutenberg to download the ebook for free. That’s where you can get it by the way.

But hey, maybe this book is better than the one I reviewed before. It’s always a possibility, right? The short answer is no. The long answer is not at all.

For an even longer answer, let us finally proceed with the review, which I dedicate to @koda-friedrich , @blackwidowmarshal123 and @aminoscribbles .

2. The Summary

As you might guess from the title, the book is set during the Egyptian campaign and, in classic Henty fashion, has a young English boy as the protagonist.

Edgar Blagrove, the boy in question, is a son of an English merchant who is left behind in Egypt during the war, so the book follows his adventures as he’s trying to survive, reunite with his family and have adventures along the way (as you do).

Even though Henty’s books are targeted at young boys, the premise sounds like something that I would actually enjoy, but I didn’t.

Let’s dissect this book to find out just how bad it gets, shall we?

3. The Story

The beginning isn’t so great. At first the opening scene promises some action, yet the immersion is broken like glass a couple of pages in with heaps upon heaps of Edgar’s backstory. Nice job, Henty…

Luckily, it’s the only time an extensive flashback like this is used, but the pacing can get about as fast as snail because often pieces of information get repeated in dialogues when nothing bad would’ve happened if the author avoided said repetition.

Moreover, while in the first half or so of the story the hero’s ways of getting out of problems stay realistic and justifiable, the second half has Edgar cross so far into Mary Sue territory that he may as well be called Gary Stu.

(Spoilers ahead)

This kid gets hired by SIDNEY FUCKING SMITH as a midshipman and interpreter. I’m not kidding, that’s an actual plot point!

Let me repeat: A kid who DID NOT previously serve in the navy is made midshipman and interpreter by SIDNEY SMITH, who meets said kid by pure coincidence! And only the interpreter part is justified, since Edgar was educated in several languages from a young age and learned the mother tongues of servants and citizens of Cairo too.

That, in all honesty, was the point where I just lost what little investment I had because it just became too apparent that everything will be fine and Edgar will have a happy ending.

4. The Characters

Before crossing the Gary Stu threshold, Edgar actually had potential to be a good character.

He is a reckless kid who was so bored with his monotonous life in Cairo that he wanted to see the English kick the French in the ass.

He cares about his friends, is kind and ready to help his loved ones and sometimes makes risky decisions.

But then he just becomes somebody who is always right and he gets too perfect. So all the potential goes down the drain like a dead goldfish. Hooray…

Sidi, an Arab boy Edgar rescues in the beginning of the story, is a bit more interesting, mainly due to his dynamic with Edgar as basically adopted brothers. He and his family provide Edgar with shelter in their oasis and help him out in a time of need too. Unfortunately, Sidi is a bit of a flat character for someone who gets a pretty major role in the story, but Henty isn’t too good with characters anyway.

Other characters are flat too. To various degrees. Unfortunately, that’s all I can say because there’s a ton of characters.

However, English officers like Nelson and Sidney Smith are whitewashed and glorified to no end. Henty loves sucking the dick of English nationalism, but I already saw that in my other review so no surprise there.

As for the French side of things… I was genuinely surprised that Napoleon was NOT portrayed as Devil Incarnate and it’s mentioned that he does care about his troops.

Many historical figures are name dropped but don’t appear in person, such as Kleber, Desaix, Junot, Menou, etc. Personally, I’m glad they don’t get a cameo in person for several reasons:

A) the book isn’t about them

B) it would be too unrealistic for Edgar to meet those people

C) after the atrocious portrayal of Montagnards, I DO NOT trust Henty with accuracy when it comes to French Republican generals

Eugene de Beauharnais is omitted once again, even though I’m pretty sure he participated in that campaign. Oh well, shout-out to Eugene from me!

5. The Setting

Henty is, once again, bad with settings and his descriptions are, at times, too minimalistic.

I didn’t feel the action in battle scenes, I couldn’t envision the oasis, the streets of Cairo or any other settings. There’s just not enough to achieve immersion.

6. The Writing

The writing is old fashioned, as it was a book written in the 19th century, but for people who are fluent in English there shouldn’t be a lot of issues with comprehending the vocabulary, except maybe all the naval terms that have no definitions given. Grrr…

I can’t necessarily call Henty’s writing awful, but it’s not for me so it didn’t help my overall impression of the book.

7. The Conclusion

Even though it’s not as bad as “In the Reign of Terror” was, it’s still not a book I would recommend and the improvements are insignificant.

Most characters are still flat, the annoying nationalism has still reared its head, the pacing is longer than the Amazon River and the protagonist becomes a Gary Stu in the end.

The verdict? Please find something else to read.

Anyway, the soirée is officially coming to an end. Please stay tuned because more updates are coming soon.

Love,

Citizen Green Pixel

[usergreenpixel]

JACOBIN FICTION CONVENTION MEETING 28: THE GLASS-BLOWERS (1963)

1. The Introduction

Hi, Citizens! Welcome back to the Jacobin Fiction Convention!

So, today’s the day we review yet another media piece! Will it be a hidden gem? A shitty Thermidorian-sponsored pile of lies? One of those modern perceptions of Frev that paint the warmongering rats called Girondins as the innocent moderates again? Let’s find out!

(I swear, the Girondins may haunt me after this… but I don’t give a fuck!)

Anyway, I usually don’t trust authors who are anglophone. Not on the topic of Frev, at least, as our community has been burnt on that front far too many times.

However, what interested me about Daphne du Maurier’s novel is the fact that it’s based on the story of her ancestors, the titular glass-blowers from France, so she definitely had much more accurate material to work with than most authors do.

Also the foreword throws a ton of shade at The Scarlet Pimpernel (which is a pleasant bonus in my book) and promises readers a private story - the tale of one specific family - instead of same old, same old sensationalist Frev stuff usually shown in media. So, naturally, I was interested to see if this would be the one time an Anglophone book wouldn’t spout propaganda.

In order to find that out, let’s begin!

P. S. The book is available online in PDF and EPUB formats so it shouldn’t be hard to find the entire thing.

P. P. S. This review is dedicated to @fireortheflood and @edgysaintjust

2. The Summary

The summary comes from Goodreads:

“The world of the glass-blowers has its own traditions, it's own language - and its own rules. 'If you marry into glass' Pierre Labbe warns his daughter, 'you will say goodbye to everything familiar, and enter a closed world'. But crashing into this world comes the violence and terror of the French Revolution, against which the family struggles to survive.

Years later, Sophie Duval reveals to her long-lost nephew the tragic story of a family of master craftsmen in eighteenth-century France. Drawing on her own family's tale of tradition and sorrow, Daphne du Maurier weaves an unforgettable saga of beauty, war, and family.”

Okay, the summary is coming off as having a bit of propaganda, but genuine atrocities did happen during Frev too so let’s not jump to conclusions just yet and unpack this.

3. The Story

First of all, I loved the framing device of one family member (Sophie Duval) writing a letter to another (Louis-Mathurin Busson, her nephew) to help the latter uncover important truth.

I will get into why Sophie is doing that in the “Characters” section, but I like this “excuse” for telling us this story, as it really feels like the reader is let in on the secret along with the character of the nephew.

Also, I like the fact that the primary focus is on the Busson family and multiple prospectives within it, as this makes the reader more attached to everything that’s going on. Honestly, reminds me of “One Nation, One King”, a movie in which ordinary people are the main characters, not historical figures. Also this approach is refreshing!

The pacing is generally pretty good, and, while at first I felt like Sophie’s decision to start with the story of her parents was a bit unnecessary, it proved to be the opposite. See, that backstory actually sets up a lot of things that will happen later on and, again, make for a more personal story where the reader is actually invested in the lives of the characters, their trade (glass making), etc.

However, be warned that some time skips can be a bit confusing and the pace is not fast, which definitely isn’t for everyone. Also the story isn’t exactly linear - no big goals or high stakes to drive the narrative here, so it’s probably not a book for you if you prefer something more linear and goal-oriented with high stakes.

Finally, I love the touch of pointing out that certain events in the family happen right before/right after the important historical stuff. Only serves to make Frev more personal in the long run, which is nice!

And, while the narrative doesn’t idealize Frev, we’re meant to see it as a good thing, with Royalists and Girondins being the bad guys (yay) and here’s the excerpt that brought me joy specifically because it doesn’t sugarcoat Girondins (they don’t deserve it):

So yeah, when it comes to the story, I haven’t seen any major issues. Moving on.

4. The Characters

(Spoiler alert!)

To be honest, I found Sophie Duval a bit bland at first, but her character grew on me later on. She is initially against Frev and thinks it’s just radical fanaticism because she sees riots personally and fears for her family, but later becomes disillusioned by the old laws and embraces the Revolution.

Of course, with the Revolution come atrocities as well, so she doesn’t view it through rose-tinted glasses in hindsight, but she doesn’t really buy into most of the propaganda. There is a tidbit of Law of 22 Prarial where she thinks that this is going too far, but this is not an unreasonable fear, more like fear of the side effects of this law and not being able to know the full context anyway, since she lives in a more rural area, away from Paris.

In the end, Sophie just looks out for her family and her views change throughout the story. Very realistic, and I love it.

I also love her siblings, two of whom are revolutionaries, and I love the fact that one of the revolutionary siblings is female (her name is Edmé). See, revolutionary women should get more credit and representation, so I’m ecstatic that we got a republican action girl who participates in riots and even kills a Vendean rebel!

She isn’t afraid to take action. Love it!

Pierre, yet another one of Sophie’s siblings, is a secondary character but I love the fact that he does his best to help the poor as a lawyer and also actively tries to change things.

The only one out of the Busson siblings whom I hated is the oldest, Robert. Basically, since he was born when his parents were pretty wealthy (running a glass-house) and his mom was on good terms with the owner of the business (a marquise), Robert naturally visited the château of this marquise a lot as a child because that was his mother’s friend.

Unfortunately, this environment made him dream of high society and become too ambitious and irresponsible for his own good. He bankrupts himself multiple times and one bankruptcy results in the sale of the glass-house where his father was apprenticed, yet Robert doesn’t give a fuck.

He generally doesn’t give a fuck about anyone except himself or the consequences of his actions, to the point that he abandons his kids! Twice!

First time, he loses his first wife and does raise his son for a bit, then Frev comes and he sides with Duke of Orléans. Then he realizes that France isn’t going to be a monarchy and flees with émigrés to London, abandoning his son completely and dumping him onto Madame Busson like a sack of potatoes! Oh, and before leaving he remarries without telling anyone.

Second time, Robert completely deceives his second wife, pretending to be an impoverished aristocrat who was never married and never had kids, knowing she will believe it because she is a young and naïve orphan. Then they flee to London, have a bunch of kids (he never remembers his first son), Robert finds out that French émigrés aren’t welcome and he can’t make it big and be in high society like he hoped. So what does he do? Correct, he fakes his death and returns to France, abandoning his second family too!

Sorry for the rant, Citizens, it’s just that Robert made my blood boil. What a charming fucking guy… It’s really no wonder that, after his return, his first son wants nothing to do with him.

By the way, the nephew to whom Sophie is writing about her family is one of the children Robert had with his second wife, so he grew up believing the lies that his father was an aristocrat whose château was burned down by revolutionaries, so the reason for this letter is Sophie telling him the truth, as she rightfully believes that it’s her duty and that her nephew should know said truth.

I also liked Magdaleine Busson, Sophie’s mother. She is a caring, strict and wise woman who looked after ledgers and workers at the glass-house where her husband was managing things. She takes no bullshit from Robert at all and is absolutely furious the bastard left behind his son. Okay, actually she takes no bullshit from anyone, which is pretty cool.

As for historical figures, most of them are merely namedropped. Duke of Orléans makes a cameo, but others are mentioned in passing (like Marat, Robespierre and Napoleon). Also we have more obscure people being mentioned, like General Kléber or Pierre Choderlos de Laclos (if you know Dangerous Liasons, that should ring a bell). But that’s about it, and I’m okay with it because it’s not a story about them.

5. The Setting

Du Maurier really has a way of bringing the story to life with just the right amount of description and action balanced out. Love her approach to that.

6. The Writing

There is some outdated vocabulary used, but most of the time it’s really easy to understand for those who’re fluent in English and French words have just enough context clues for the audience to figure out what they mean.

The style also doesn’t dive into annoying habits like absurdly long descriptions, which is a big relief after that awful Madame Tussaud book.

Also it’s one of the few times I’ve seen where the first person point of view avoids the trap of the main character becoming the author’s surrogate in the universe or a self-insert.

7. The Conclusion

I’m pleasantly surprised to report that there’s very little (if any) lies here. All in all, this is an excellent read that takes a dive into family history of the author and the events unfolding before the eyes of the characters.

It has well-written characters, a compelling story to tell its audience, a first person POV done right and, for a change, a narrative that focuses on regular people.

I definitely recommend this novel (but trigger warning for child death, still births, death, blood, pregnancy and an ableist word towards the end). If you feel like reading a story offering lower stakes and more personal conflicts, then this is a novel for you.

But, with that out of the way, we must conclude today’s meeting. Stay tuned for future updates and reviews!

Love,

- Citizen Green Pixel

[margridarnauds]

Wtf is with the Tudor fandom?? Those are the same people who have “cancelled” Isabel and Fernando lmao for their colonization of America. Why are they so mad when we talk about Elizabeth I + colonization then? who tf do they think they are by saying “social justice warriors”?

I feel, personally, like the weaponization of serious issues for the purposes of ships and stanning various figures has kind of brought us to this point, ngl. Anne Boleyn supporters bring up the Inquisition, bring up slavery, bring up the colonization of America, while KOA supporters toss Ireland and the treatment of black and Jewish people around like a ping pong ball, on and on, back and forth, pettier and pettier with each exchange. There’s no real room to discuss anything, because it’s inherently polarized, and the only ones who really lose are the ones in the fandom who wanted to discuss it from the beginning because it reflects some part of their lived experience, only to find themselves used as pawns and then discarded when they’re no longer of use. And, in that area, as a white American Celticist, I got off fairly clean. I haven’t had to deal with the constant harassment that others have had to deal with. I’ve just been lied about and ignored, which, in many, many ways, is better. Annoying, but better. 

  I’m personally at an odd place with Ferdinand and Isabella given that I do live at Ground Zero of the Spanish colonization of America - The people of Florida have, for the most part (though not uncontroversially), begun to seriously question the narratives that we were always fed about Ponce de Léon and the “Discovery” of Florida, taking into account more re: his treatment of the Táino people, who were exploited, enslaved, and butchered by Spanish forces who were paid with Ferdinand of Aragon’s gold, working under Ferdinand of Aragon’s authority. We are starting to question what, exactly, it means when we talk about having the oldest continuously occupied city in the nation, along with the question of where the legendary emeralds of the lost Plate Fleet (that, let’s be real, we ALL want to find) came from, which hands mined them before they were put into crucifixes, whose blood stains them. I’m not going to pretend I have any personal love of them, though I recognize their overall historical importance. I think that, like any other historical figures, we can talk about the good and the bad, along with the lasting effects, both good and bad, of them and their reign. 

  That being said, the blatant hypocrisy of the Tudors fandom to criticize one fandom when, the second the spotlight is turned on them, they suddenly demur and claim that, actually, that doesn’t MATTER anymore, it was centuries ago, is galling. Either we critically analyze history like adults for both sides of the Catholic VS Protestant debate, acknowledging that both sides committed atrocities that echo down to the present, or we don’t. We keep brushing things under the rug, keep trying to argue why our faves were the most pure, keep trying to enter into a dick measuring contest with a thin veneer of academism. (And, at the risk of putting too fine a point on it, in my field, I have just as much standing as they do. I’m not asking for people to bow down or even to take what I say uncritically, since I hate elitism in the field, but I AM asking, if they’re claiming to be academics and using that to swing their weight around, to give me the same respect as another academic. You can’t have the respect that comes with the position without acknowledging the responsibility.) 

  All I ever REALLY wanted was for people to talk about the darker side, not to permanently #Cancel anyone (the past is a fucked up place—If I didn’t feel like I had to constantly defend my field’s existence constantly from people wanting to paint the Irish as barbarians, I could tell you some REALLY fucked up things from Irish history/literature. Especially the literature), but to TALK about the nuances involved, only to find that, on both sides, people only really cared about boosting their own pet faves. I’m not saying “You can only post a gifset of Elizabeth/Isabella if you include a dissertation tacked on at the end of how they weren't  #GirlBosses", rather that the general perception of them needed to become more nuanced, and yet, somehow, that led to me becoming one of the black sheep of the Tudor fandom. (That and, admittedly, mentioning the very true fact that one British Dynasty has received more media attention in 20 years than the entirety of Irish history’s received in cinematic history…..which I stand by, not the least because I didn’t mention WHICH dynasty, since it applies, in fact, to multiple, including the present ruling dynasty.) (Okay, and calling an ugly fraud of a portrait an ugly fraud of a portrait. Which I also stand by.)

One thing that I appreciate with the saner parts of, for example, the French Revolution fandom is that, while it can still be quite polarized, there is, essentially, at least the IDEA that both sides fucked up and did fucked up things. The idea that, even though you can appreciate that certain figures, like Robespierre, like Marie Antoinette, like Philippe Égalité (though I’m still working on that one) were slandered in their time, they ALSO were complicit in some terrible, terrible things. I haven’t really seen any Robespierre fans defending, say, the September Massacres, the Vendée, or the suppression of the Brezhoneg language. (I’ve gotten more mixed reviews from the pro-Royalist side, but at least the understanding that the Ancien Régime and the people in it weren’t ideal, which is more than I’m getting on this side.) Is the Frev fandom ideal? No. It isn’t. It suffers from many of the same shortcomings as any other historical fandom, and there are quite a few people I utterly refuse to engage with because I find them to be too extreme on one side or the other (being the one Orléanist Stan™ does help things along), but, that being said, at least they’re having SOME historical perspective.

I made the unfortunate mistake of thinking that, when people said “Oh, yes, we can appreciate these things in the context of their time, with critical thinking!” They actually meant it, as opposed to just wanting an excuse to shut us up until we’re useful again. Instead, I quickly realized that people only cared so long as it bolstered them and their side, not about the people who were actually harmed, and if we bring THEM up, we’re SJWs. No need to argue with what we’re actually SAYING if you can just lie about us repeatedly. And, frankly? I’m utterly disgusted at the number of blogs that I thought would know better, who I respected for their nuanced approach to history and the study of it, humoring them. I’m utterly disgusted at how their narrative of “Evil SJW”s has actually gained currency from people who have based their entire reputation, sometimes their careers, on critical thinking and analyzing biases. 

[usergreenpixel]

Hey, Citizens! It is I, the self-appointed FRev community archivist and I’m here with an announcement that we have our own lost media! Yep, there is FRev-themed lost media! Now that’s an achievement!

First and foremost, allow me to clarify that when I say lost media, I’m referring to its definition from Wikipedia, which is (and I quote): “an umbrella term for media that no longer exists, is missing, or is not available to the general public”. So this means that perhaps it can be found and accessed somehow, but not readily so.

Okay, having clarified the semantics, allow me to present the media piece in question!

*drum rolll*

Marianne Première!

Honestly, the only reason I know about the existence of this cartoon is my habit of scrolling through IMDb in search for review topics.

Based on the limited information sourced from IMDb itself, a couple of French websites and its intro on YouTube, this looks like a swashbuckling story and it is indeed set in Frev so it would be right up my alley... but there’s a problem.

I can’t seem to find this cartoon anywhere. Yeah, I didn’t joke when I say it’s “lost media”. There are 12 episodes on YouTube but they’re in a language I don’t speak (possibly Serbian but not sure) and that’s not even the full series because there were 24 episodes in total, at least in the original 1990 broadcast.

I know there’s also a Mexican dub which I could watch (my Spanish is pretty good) but I can’t find it anywhere either so... that’s a fail so far.

I know our community has several French-speaking Citizens so, perhaps some of you might know more about this cartoon. Any information about “Marianne Première” and/or help with finding it will be appreciated!

- Citizen Green Pixel

[usergreenpixel]

Reblogging to show the intro of this cartoon, just in case it rings a bell for anyone:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-xQi_s3THhQ

There you go, Citizens!

Hey, Citizens! It is I, the self-appointed FRev community archivist and I’m here with an announcement that we have our own lost media! Yep, there is FRev-themed lost media! Now that’s an achievement!

First and foremost, allow me to clarify that when I say lost media, I’m referring to its definition from Wikipedia, which is (and I quote): “an umbrella term for media that no longer exists, is missing, or is not available to the general public”. So this means that perhaps it can be found and accessed somehow, but not readily so.

Okay, having clarified the semantics, allow me to present the media piece in question!

*drum rolll*

Marianne Première!

Honestly, the only reason I know about the existence of this cartoon is my habit of scrolling through IMDb in search for review topics.

Based on the limited information sourced from IMDb itself, a couple of French websites and its intro on YouTube, this looks like a swashbuckling story and it is indeed set in Frev so it would be right up my alley... but there’s a problem.

I can’t seem to find this cartoon anywhere. Yeah, I didn’t joke when I say it’s “lost media”. There are 12 episodes on YouTube but they’re in a language I don’t speak (possibly Serbian but not sure) and that’s not even the full series because there were 24 episodes in total, at least in the original 1990 broadcast.

I know there’s also a Mexican dub which I could watch (my Spanish is pretty good) but I can’t find it anywhere either so... that’s a fail so far.

I know our community has several French-speaking Citizens so, perhaps some of you might know more about this cartoon. Any information about “Marianne Première” and/or help with finding it will be appreciated!

- Citizen Green Pixel