Is Ruth Scurr's book about Robespierre a good book ?
In short, Ruth Scurr spends a great deal of time saying why you wouldn’t want to invite Robespierre to dinner.
His personality is assaulted and she then uses this as evidence of his evil as a politician. Robespierre’s dreamy, shy, avoids parties (the ‘let’s get drunk!’ kind, I mean, not necessarily political parties, although he said he didn’t like them either). She then spends very little time analyzing Robespierre’s politics or the circumstances that drove him, leaving her head twirling at his maneuvers, which she inevitably boils down to his personality defects.
But for someone who is so focused on Robespierre’s personality, she actually offers very little insight there, either. So many of her paragraphs she just sums up with “this was irrational, Robespierre was just being nuts.” Okay, fine - but why? If he’s mad, what’s his method?
One thing that particularly bugs me about “Robespierre is just wacky” is Scurr tries to use idealism as an inherent indication of irrationality. It’s not. The fact that Robespierre did not take bribes is actually not that scary. No matter what your politics, I’m sure you’d agree, that trying to improve the living conditions of the poor is not scary. Believing in your cause is not, in and of itself, Bad. It’s what the cause is that can be frightening but Scurr just sort of shrugs and lumbers off when you ask her about it.
If Robespierre is wrong, why? Even if you dislike Robespierre - and there’s plenty to dislike - you should at least be able to explain to me why Robespierre thought he was right if you’re writing his biography.
But to an extent…she can’t. Because to explain why Robespierre thinks he’s doing makes sense, Scurr would have to place him in the context of his time. There’s a French Revolution going on in the book, in the background, somewhere, but Scurr really doesn’t want to analyze that much. Oh, she’ll judge it - this part was good, this part was bad, but Scurr really does start to muddle around whenever she has to explain the why of anything.
And context is everything. If I sit down in a chair and start to hallucinate for a few hours, you might think that I’m a little peculiar. If you learn that I’m just sitting in the chair reading a book and just visualizing the scenes, well - well, now it’s a different picture, isn’t it?
To summarize her book: Robespierre was crazy, the French Revolution happened and it was bad. If you want something a little more in depth, I’d look elsewhere.
So no, I don’t like it very much. It does have its merits; it was the first biography of Robespierre I ever read, and actually can serve as a good introduction to the period itself in terms of “things happened in A, B, C order.”