The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette: A Novel [Paperback]

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.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 65 reviews  3.5 out of 5 stars