![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
French Revolution: A History
Oct. 10th, 2012 10:35 pmCarlyle's FRENCH REVOLUTION is difficult to plough through. To me, Charles Dickens twisted gold from mud when he wrote TALE OF TWO CITIES using it as a source. This book is one of the classics that one wishes to have read--but the actual reading I found more duty than pleasure. (And yet I fancy I'm not ill-read in general, nor unaccustomed to this era of writing.)
Carlyle's practice is poor for a historian. He has a fair grasp of the English language, an impressive vocabulary, and an ability to structure sentences and correctly use varied typographical marks. Yet his style is now outmoded, in a way that I don't think is solely due to his era - the memoirs of the Princess Palatine, admittedly in translation, are much more interesting and lively to read; Dickens is much easier to read; Thackeray is much easier to read. And interest is lost due to this poor practice at writing history.( Read more... )
Carlyle's practice is poor for a historian. He has a fair grasp of the English language, an impressive vocabulary, and an ability to structure sentences and correctly use varied typographical marks. Yet his style is now outmoded, in a way that I don't think is solely due to his era - the memoirs of the Princess Palatine, admittedly in translation, are much more interesting and lively to read; Dickens is much easier to read; Thackeray is much easier to read. And interest is lost due to this poor practice at writing history.( Read more... )
