Customer Reviews

The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette: A Novel

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I read Erickson's other book about Marie Antoinette, and I know she knows the subject. Why she didn't use her knowledge in this book is beyond me. Instead of giving us insight into things that did happen (adopting a child before she had her own), she creates characters who didn't historically exist. Instead of bringing alive the people who affected the Queen's life, she glossed over relationships and character. The King's brothers tried to take his thrown, the King's aunts tried to sabotage the Queen, the Queen adopted a child then abandoned him, the Queen was accused of relationships with her women friends... but frankly, this "hidden diary" is as vacuous as critics said Marie Antoinette was. Highly disappointing from Carolly Erickson. Fragmented and strangely distancing from the subject.

Before I write my review I will just give a disclaimer, which is that I enjoyed this book and you probably will too. It was entertaining. You will particularly enjoy it if you don't know anything about Marie Antoinette. I already knew all this stuff and still thought it was fun. If it's all new to you, you will like the dishy and accurate details of, e.g., the King's inability to consummate the royal marriage for seven whole years. Great stuff, very dishy, and the author knows how to write a page turner. So, on that level I say go buy it. It gave me some hours of fun. Although, you might find it downright insane that the Diamond Necklace Affair, one of the most infamous court scandals of the 1780s and the one believed to have played a major role in fatally defaming Marie Antoinette, was not mentioned at all! Not once! It was important enough to be a recent movie with 2 time oscar winner Hillary Swank, but this author decided not to include a single mention of it.

So, on another, more deeper level, I'm actually a historian so I have to say that this kind of friviolous, uninformative and selective-omission type writing irritates me to a degree. We already know so much about this woman, and while I do not believe she deserved her fate (I'm against the death penalty period!) I think she is a poor subject for literature. It's interesting that such an ordinary man (Louis the Last) and woman (Widow Capet) with such uninspiring personalities would end up being thrown into such a situation by an accident of fate, but that only goes so far.

After awhile, when you realize there is real history of import out there, you have to wonder why there are thousands upon thousands of books about Marie Antoinette. It's very elitist. Let's face it,it's like Princess Diana being on the cover of all those magazines. Yes, she seemed like a nice lady and yes, it's sad that she ended up in awful situations. But what about people like Nelson Mandela? They're a lot more interesting and tell us a lot more about the heroic potential of the human spirit than some woman who, at the end of the day, really was frivolous. She may not have said "Qu'ils mangent du gateau" (let them eat cake), but she did spend much money on finery while people starved to death. A modern-day dictator would hardly be celebrated in fluff literature for such choices. And if they would, we have to question our values system.

Which brings me to my absolute least favorite part of the book. It was relatively accurate despite some of the fictious characters-until the end. It really bothered me that the author takes a Dickensian approach toward revolutionary violence...well, she takes the approach of of all conservative writers from the time of the revolution to now (i.e., Simon Schama). I don't defend violence, but she made no attempt to understand or portray what drives the desperately poor and needy to acts of intense inhumanity then, and this still happens now.

I understand the author is trying to "be" Marie Antoinette, so her "insights" are limited, but I think it's a little ridiculous and contrived to make up a stupid personality for Robespierre and an even dumber meeting between him and the Queen. The author's Robespierre is based almost entirely on Mme. Roland's memoirs, the famous and bizarre aside Mme Roland made about the Incorruptible having greenish veins which was later turned by Carlyle into the infamous "sea-green Incorruptible". Madame Roland was about the only source ever claiming Robespierre was "green". Most people said he was quite pleasant looking. I ought to know. I've read about seventeen biographies on the man. (Don't ask).

She exaggerated everything about him and completely obscured his actual personality. He was misguided, but not in the way she portrayed it.

It was a total recycled, post-Thermidorian cartoon of the man, which is not good history, it's not even decent historical fiction. He wasn't out of control in the way she wrote it. Also, he stands in for every other revolutionary. Only Marat and Mirabeau are mentioned, and barely at that.

Keep in mind that it's awful history and think of it more as "Jackie Collins in 18th Century France". Which is fine, but I still think they could've made it a little less ridiculous. I don't like real historical figures to be simplified down to cartoon characters. The cartoon gets remembered and nothing else-which is the dumbest form of history out there.

When I saw this book at the store I was immediately intrigued. As an avid reader about this time in French history, I had high hopes for this novel. I was profoundly disappointed. It is, unfortunately, a weak book worsened by a confused structure. This work of historical fiction is filled with a blatant disregard for history. Although Erickson attempts to avoid the issue by saying this is a work of fiction, I feel that if you choose a historical figure as the subject of a `fictional account', there is still some responsibility to write within the realm of well known history. What is entertaining about reading historical fiction is that the author takes the known history of a subject and frames that within a shell of fiction. This fiction can be used to fill in gaps or perhaps give an alternate view of a certain life or event but should still remain true to its historical root. There is a very real difference between historical fiction and the historical invention found in this novel. I do realize that there are limitations when writing about the personal feelings of a subject who left no diary or memoir, but come on! There are several parts of the story that are pure fabrication (Trip to Sweden, The Hapsburg Sun, Eric) while some of the most important events in Marie Antoinette's real life (i.e., Affair of the Necklace, her trial) are excluded from the story altogether.

Bottom Line: The worst problem with this book is that Erickson's Marie Antoinette is just not a believable character. The real life story of Marie Antoinette needs no tawdry and pointless supplements to be entertaining. It is full of enough drama and tragedy to stand wholly on its own; any author worth her salt should have recognized that.

Erickson's main objective (rather than argument) was to imaginatively elaborate on the actual lives of Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI. Erickson invented dialogue and characters. Entries into the journal recited creative dialogue and the deeply personal thoughts of Marie Antoinette. The characters that were created further transformed this book into a spellbinding read. The invented characters of Amelie, Erick, and Sophie enriched the read by evoking emotions from Marie Antoinette, such as lust, love, and hatred.

I can't help thinking "Hidden Diary" was written as a potential candidate for the "Royal Diaries" children's series. RD had enough sense to publish Kathryn Lasky's "Princess of Versailles" instead which was much more entertaining, historically accurate, and presented M.A. as a more credible character.

I don't think Errickson is at all comfortable with the realm of fiction. "Hidden Diary" read like a history book being recited by a young girl. All of the characters are extremely one-dimensional and Errickson provides no motives to develop MA's character.

It reads like, "Right now I'm in Austria, and I'm in love with the groom....Now I'm in France, and I want to be a good wife, and I still love the groom and his wife is SO jealous....Now I've met Axel and I'm SO in love..." etc.

All in all this is an amateurish and uninspiring work. The romantic parts weren't romantic since none of the romantic pairs ever really fall in love, everything "just happens" to suit the plotline.

The trecherous chambermaid, Amelie, is a rip off of Madame Defarge. It's never clarified what her grievances really are or if she's just a psychopath.

Ironically I think Louis XVI may be the one character in the story who touched me. I felt his characterisation was mostly very believable.

Overall, this book was a deep disappointment to me and I can't reccommend it as entertainment or as a good historical.

I particularly enjoyed the diary format of The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette. It illustrated the hypothetical Marie's state of mind from her early teens up to her death by guillotine and made for a quick, entertaining read.

Author Carolly Erickson makes it clear that this is a work of fiction, not fact, but her attention to historical detail, embellished by her beautifully drawn characterizations of Marie, Louie and Axel Ferson captures every nuance of their convoluted personal relationships. The reader occasionally finds themselves feeling some sympathy Marie, the mother, as well as for the weak King Louis XVI, since it was never his desire to ascend the throne. One does wonder why he and Marie ignored the Parisian storm that was building for a dozen or more years until it became the violent hurricane known as the French Revolution. (I suppose since the outcome of the story had already been written by history, the author chose to explore the logical steps that would culminate with a trip to the guillotine).

Cheers to Ms. Erickson for her imaginative, enthralling chronicle. One can almost believe this diary was actually committed to paper by the woman who - in reality - - was much too busy living to ever have the time or inclination to pen this journal.

While most probably think the story of Marie Antoinette's life is already well known, we come to know the woman in Carolly Erickson's absorbing narrative. The wife of Louis IV probably does not have an enviable reputation among many. Perhaps they think she was merely a vapid member of the decadent aristocracy who dismissed the hungry French with "Let them eat cake." (Which, by the way she did not say). She emerges as a much more sympathetic character in the hands of Erickson.

Using a fictional diary as her literary device, Erickson recounts Marie Antoinette's fated life in the queen's own words. She joyfully remembers her happy childhood in Austria where she lived as an archduchess. It was a childhood that many today will think came to an abrupt end when at the age of 14 she was wed to Louis, heir to the French throne. His lineage, sad to say, was almost all that distinguished him.

We hear of the glory years at Versailles and the queen's liaison with a Swedish diplomat. Too soon these days come to an end with the French Revolution, Marie Antoinette's grueling imprisonment, and eventual death by guillotine. She suffered the loss of her children, and witnessed the death of her husband.

Actress/singer Maggi-Meg Reed gives an insightful performance beautifully capturing both the queen's gaiety and her heartbreak. A worthy listen!

- Gail Cooke

Learned a few things about history that I didn't know. A fast and easy read; mostly enjoyable. Alittle too much mushy romance for me. Painted Marie Antoinette as a soft, sweet and totally misrepresented woman-nothing like the woman I learned about in school. All in all, a good read if you enjoy historical fiction.

In 1769, Father Kunibert demands that thirteen years old Archduchess Maria Antonia called Antoinette to confess her sins by writing them down in a journal. Thus starts a record of her life through her eyes that she maintains until her last entry while residing in Conciergie Prison in Oct 1793. Early on at fourteen, she is to save Austria by marrying the Bourbon heir to the throne of France. Over the next two decades she takes lovers, but supports her husband King Louis XVI. When the peasants storm the palace, she is as unprepared as the other nobles especially her spouse. As she realizes they will get their pint of blood and more, she keeps her head up until she meets Madam Guillotine.

Using real historical events over the latter half of the eighteenth century, Carolly Erickson provides a provocative fictionalized autobiography of Marie Antoinette. Fans obtain a taste of how the royal court perceived life including their take on the peasant class. Though there is too much titillating tease about Maria's affairs that takes away from the insightful look at the events and misinterpretation of these incidents that lead to the downfall of royalty, THE HIDDEN DIARY OF MARIE ANTOINETTE remains a fine work of historical fiction.

Harriet Klausner

Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette / 0-312-36150-5

I love reading about Marie Antoinette, and I couldn't pass up this book with the lovely cover and sumptuous cover quotes. The novel is a quick read, and in the diary format that I usually find so compelling, but somehow the whole overall feel of the book seems dull and uninspired.

The Marie Antoinette pictured here seems so saccharine and flavorless. Everything she does is perfect - she loves her husband (despite his ugliness, awkwardness, and all the troubles he causes her), she "courtly" (i.e., without sex) loves her horse groom, she monogamously loves Count Fersen, she manages the country and household when the king can't be bothered, and even her short-sightedness with finances is largely brushed off as amusing little foibles. I feel that author Erickson is trying to counteract the lamentable tendency to thoroughly and unfairly villify Marie Antoinette, but has overshot the mark into whitewashing her into the perfect suburban housewife - it's just so neat and tidy.

Furthermore, it's frustrating to have to point out that fictional characters should not obviously be fictional. To put it another way, when I'm reading a fictional account, I should not be able to tell - until the final Author's Note - which characters were made up out of whole-cloth. To provide a 'villain' for the novel, Erickson has invented a serving maid that might as well have '666' tattooed on her forehead for all the subtlety she brings. You may well think this character to be the devil incarnate when she is able to sass royalty brazenly, single-handedly organize villagers to revolt, and then manage to insert herself into ever major interview with the queen in her later years - including as her guard, her tormentor, her captor, and in a gratuitous "threaten with rape and dismemberment" scene. Where does she find the energy to do all that AND clean chamber-pots, is what I want to know. But seriously, a single focal-point villain is not a good thing, and the part should have been broken up more carefully and realistically - it just strains the credulity and reminds the reader that this is fiction, not history.

Beyond anything else, the pacing seems a little "off" in this novel. Almost no time is spent pre-wedding in this novel - the famous scene of her clothing change-over is left out entirely, and she seems to become engaged and then married in the course of a few days. The early years of her marriage are skipped through quickly as well, and much of the drama of the aunts and DuBarry is hurried past. Once she becomes queen, a great deal of time is spent on her early years, and then largely with an emphasis on Count Fersen, and yet an awful lot is not said - and what is said seems sometimes confusing and poorly edited, for instance when we are told that her journal was found and all her secrets about Eric became court gossip, and yet a few pages later she mentions that her greatest fear is that anyone will find out that she in fond of Eric. Things get worse when Sophie-the-child is introduced and is not always carefully differentiated between Sophie-the-maid.

Overall, this isn't a bad book, and I think a lot of people will find the reading pleasant, but I found it disappointing because so much interesting material was left out, and so much of what was written failed to really hold the attention or add depth to the characters. "Shallow" is how I would describe it - as sugary and substance-less as a piece of cake.

~ Ana Mardoll