What do you think?
Rate this book
The French Revolution and What Went Wrong
An entertaining and eye-opening look at the French Revolution, by Stephen Clarke, author of 1000 Years of Annoying the French and A Year in the Merde.
The French Revolution and What Went Wrong looks back at the French Revolution and how it’s surrounded in a myth. In 1789, almost no one in France wanted to oust the king, let alone guillotine him. But things quickly escalated until there was no turning back.
The French Revolution and What Went Wrong looks at what went wrong and why France would be better off if they had kept their monarchy.
The French Revolution and What Went Wrong looks back at the French Revolution and how it’s surrounded in a myth. In 1789, almost no one in France wanted to oust the king, let alone guillotine him. But things quickly escalated until there was no turning back.
The French Revolution and What Went Wrong looks at what went wrong and why France would be better off if they had kept their monarchy.
687 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 3, 2018
126 people are currently reading
1546 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Clarke
31 books412 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Stephen Clarke is the bestselling author of seven books of fiction and nonfiction that satirize the peculiarities of French culture. In 2004, he self-published A Year in the Merde, a comic novel skewering contemporary French society. The novel was an instant success and has led to numerous follow-ups, including Dial M for Merde (2008), 1,000 Years of Annoying the French (2010), and Paris Revealed (2011). After working as a journalist for a French press group for ten years, Paris-based Clarke now has a regular spot on French cable TV, poking fun at French culture.
Stephen Clarke is the bestselling author of seven books of fiction and nonfiction that satirize the peculiarities of French culture. In 2004, he self-published A Year in the Merde, a comic novel skewering contemporary French society. The novel was an instant success and has led to numerous follow-ups, including Dial M for Merde (2008), 1,000 Years of Annoying the French (2010), and Paris Revealed (2011). After working as a journalist for a French press group for ten years, Paris-based Clarke now has a regular spot on French cable TV, poking fun at French culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 85 reviews
December 11, 2018
3,5 stars. The title of the book can be a bit misleading, since almost half of it covers the pre-revolutionary period, starting with Louis XIV. However, these bits are the most amusing parts of the book. Reading about the completely absurd, decadent and hilarious lifestyle at the versailles court will make you giggle. I got the impression that the author started with the idea of telling the story of the french revolution but thought these stories too good to leave out.
Once the revolution starts, the book gets more serious. It does a good job of chronicling the build-up and the first 3-4 years of the revolution. After that the title of the book again becomes misleading, summarizing the rest of the revolution, which he says lasted until 1871, in a few pages.
When the revolution starts, the author takes on a more political stance clearly in favour of the royalists promoting constitutional monarchy, while painting the republicans largely as opportunistic populists (especially Marat, Danton and Robespierre). His thesis is that if the early years of the revolution (a constitutional monarchy) would have continued peacefully, liberté, égalité and fraternité would have come sooner. But when the republicans took power in 1792, cut off Louis XVI’s head and started the Terreur, they used the idealistic rhetoric of the revolution to destroy its ideals. The author wants to discredit the apparent myth in France that these people brought liberté, égalité and fraternité home. They brought tyranny, mob-rule and fratricide.
The author conveys his view by ending paragraphs with witty sentences and quips, exposing the hypocrisy of his characters. However, these worked better in the first part when talking about Versailles, and seem after a while a bit cringy in the second part — we got your message, is this the only joke you have?
In sum, a nice, often funny, interesting, anecdotal and biased book. Don’t expect too much. It is a chronological retelling of the 18th century, which reads very easily. The “What Went Wrong” portion of the title again doesn’t really get answered, at least not from a broader perspective. What went wrong were Marat, Danton and Robespierre. If you are interested in the French Revolution, as I am, and want an interesting and amusing introduction, with a big focus on personalities and characters, this is the one for you.
Once the revolution starts, the book gets more serious. It does a good job of chronicling the build-up and the first 3-4 years of the revolution. After that the title of the book again becomes misleading, summarizing the rest of the revolution, which he says lasted until 1871, in a few pages.
When the revolution starts, the author takes on a more political stance clearly in favour of the royalists promoting constitutional monarchy, while painting the republicans largely as opportunistic populists (especially Marat, Danton and Robespierre). His thesis is that if the early years of the revolution (a constitutional monarchy) would have continued peacefully, liberté, égalité and fraternité would have come sooner. But when the republicans took power in 1792, cut off Louis XVI’s head and started the Terreur, they used the idealistic rhetoric of the revolution to destroy its ideals. The author wants to discredit the apparent myth in France that these people brought liberté, égalité and fraternité home. They brought tyranny, mob-rule and fratricide.
The author conveys his view by ending paragraphs with witty sentences and quips, exposing the hypocrisy of his characters. However, these worked better in the first part when talking about Versailles, and seem after a while a bit cringy in the second part — we got your message, is this the only joke you have?
In sum, a nice, often funny, interesting, anecdotal and biased book. Don’t expect too much. It is a chronological retelling of the 18th century, which reads very easily. The “What Went Wrong” portion of the title again doesn’t really get answered, at least not from a broader perspective. What went wrong were Marat, Danton and Robespierre. If you are interested in the French Revolution, as I am, and want an interesting and amusing introduction, with a big focus on personalities and characters, this is the one for you.
February 16, 2020
Not good history. Clarke's historiography is based on a narrow reading of primary sources, without any real attempt to understand others' interpretations (he bemoans the corpus of Revolution histories when explaining his sources, for example). This means that his reading of the events is based entirely on individuals and their view of the world around them- and his selection of individuals is appaling. Whilst one can argue over its primacy, one cannot understand the whole of the Revolution without understanding bread prices, but this is barely mentioned at all; far more prominence is given to the sexual relations between Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, a serious issue but far less fundamental. One cannot understand the whole of the Revolution without understanding Rousseau, the social contract, la virtue, but again he is barely mentioned at all; far more prominence is given to the Marquis de Sade and his crimes, who Clarke understands as an aberation, a bad egg, and not evidence of a corrupt and moral failing. There are errors and bizarre tangents- a good example of both is Clarke trying to elucidate the relationship between Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette by bringing up William the Conquerer and his wife, without pointing out that a) William was Norman, not French; b) William was not King of France, c) William lived 700 years before and in an entirely different context, and whilst getting the place of William's invasion wrong (he invaded England, and whilst it could be argued he invaded Great Britain, but not just Britain). The conclusion is laughable, not least for the contradiction inherent in chastising the Revolution for failing to improve the lives of the poor, women, and minorities, then claiming 1789 was revolution enough.
Clarke is way out his depth, dangerously so. When it comes to fiction, read novelists; when it comes to history, read historians.
Clarke is way out his depth, dangerously so. When it comes to fiction, read novelists; when it comes to history, read historians.
June 27, 2021
French Revolution is not even close to American Revolution: the former is not a Revolution if you judge by the results.
Americans didn't need to fight against the aristocratic ruling class (helped by a clerical class). The resentment wasn't an issue: you are in a new world, new rules, you don't bother about the history of some privileged aristocrat, you only want little taxes and freedom to find new lands (and some slaves)
French Revolution by contrast is a boiling mix of resentment, with rancor and hate. Here these bad feelings, seasoned with envy and remorse, create a mob monster that didn't have any limit, only want to destroy and take full vengeance: the only limit is the pain and death.
A radical minority, disguised as the new virtuous standard, only had control of their poison: their power over the mob is null, they only can put more fire to the fire.
Radicals didn't want to change things, they want to condemn their aristocrats to the pain that they suffered.
The most interesting part is that they already had more freedom, more social justice, only that the resentment is not an easy feeling: once you have it you have to take vengeance and inflict pain, nothing stops you, you only want to destroy.
So the Revolution in theory is a Revolution, but in fact, is a vendetta. Only 100 years later they will have a consolidated republic, and equality, freedom, and fraternity are still in process.
It is not historiography, and don't have any purpose to be that. Is only light research, with interesting details, and well document facts by first-hand sources. A lot of flaws, but overall honest and good.
Americans didn't need to fight against the aristocratic ruling class (helped by a clerical class). The resentment wasn't an issue: you are in a new world, new rules, you don't bother about the history of some privileged aristocrat, you only want little taxes and freedom to find new lands (and some slaves)
French Revolution by contrast is a boiling mix of resentment, with rancor and hate. Here these bad feelings, seasoned with envy and remorse, create a mob monster that didn't have any limit, only want to destroy and take full vengeance: the only limit is the pain and death.
A radical minority, disguised as the new virtuous standard, only had control of their poison: their power over the mob is null, they only can put more fire to the fire.
Radicals didn't want to change things, they want to condemn their aristocrats to the pain that they suffered.
The most interesting part is that they already had more freedom, more social justice, only that the resentment is not an easy feeling: once you have it you have to take vengeance and inflict pain, nothing stops you, you only want to destroy.
So the Revolution in theory is a Revolution, but in fact, is a vendetta. Only 100 years later they will have a consolidated republic, and equality, freedom, and fraternity are still in process.
It is not historiography, and don't have any purpose to be that. Is only light research, with interesting details, and well document facts by first-hand sources. A lot of flaws, but overall honest and good.
June 29, 2020
The title is "The French Revolution". The cover is in the colors of the French Revolution. The cover contains a stereotypical image from the French Revolution. The book contains a timeline of the French Revolution. But it isn't about the French Revolution, it's about Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette.
The book is well-written, but that's about it. It starts with Louis XVI's great-grandfather, who begat, who begat, etc., and ends with his death. Although it then goes on for some 70 pages, even there Louis XVI is mentioned quite often. The content is also not the most academic: a large part is dedicated to details, ranging from scandalous to salacious.
About the French Revolution we don't learn much. We get a quote from Voltaire here and there, a bit of Diderot, and a minimal biography of three main revolutionaries. We do get told why the people were ready for a revolution (they were poor, without influence, and generally mistreated), but nothing else. It's almost as if the writer thinks that Verelendung deterministically leads to it. How the various phases of the French Revolution came about, what –if anything– happened outside of Paris, why the mob was ready to lynch after a speech, we aren't told. Instead, we get stories about hair-dos and pornographic poems involving Marie-Antoinette.
The author brings one point across: Louis XVI was not a bad guy, and perhaps a constitutional monarchy with the Constitution of 1789 might have brought France peace and prosperity instead of civil war and hunger. Although that interpretation of history comes off as based on selective reading and willingness to turn a blind eye here and there, there may be some truth to it. The view it opposes, the view that the French Revolution gloriously brought Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité, is expertly demolished, but I don't think it had that many supporters left to begin with.
Read this book if you want a fluently written, somewhat gossipy look at the last of the French kings and life around him, but don't be fooled by its title.
The book is well-written, but that's about it. It starts with Louis XVI's great-grandfather, who begat, who begat, etc., and ends with his death. Although it then goes on for some 70 pages, even there Louis XVI is mentioned quite often. The content is also not the most academic: a large part is dedicated to details, ranging from scandalous to salacious.
About the French Revolution we don't learn much. We get a quote from Voltaire here and there, a bit of Diderot, and a minimal biography of three main revolutionaries. We do get told why the people were ready for a revolution (they were poor, without influence, and generally mistreated), but nothing else. It's almost as if the writer thinks that Verelendung deterministically leads to it. How the various phases of the French Revolution came about, what –if anything– happened outside of Paris, why the mob was ready to lynch after a speech, we aren't told. Instead, we get stories about hair-dos and pornographic poems involving Marie-Antoinette.
The author brings one point across: Louis XVI was not a bad guy, and perhaps a constitutional monarchy with the Constitution of 1789 might have brought France peace and prosperity instead of civil war and hunger. Although that interpretation of history comes off as based on selective reading and willingness to turn a blind eye here and there, there may be some truth to it. The view it opposes, the view that the French Revolution gloriously brought Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité, is expertly demolished, but I don't think it had that many supporters left to begin with.
Read this book if you want a fluently written, somewhat gossipy look at the last of the French kings and life around him, but don't be fooled by its title.
January 14, 2024
super duper interesting and engaging, except about half of the book was actually pre-revolutionary. also it was written from a very monarchist perspective so i would have liked to read something a bit less biased.
January 29, 2019
A fascinating book! There is a great deal of background, detailing how the excesses of Louis XIV and Louis XV precipitated the downfall of the monarchy under Louis XVI. This puts the reign of Louis XVI, and the impossible job he had to change anything for the better, into context, and paints him as quite a sympathetic character. It is perhaps a less sympathetic picture of Marie Antoinette than I’ve read elsewhere, but just as vivid, and just as compelling.
The book also briefly covers the aftermath of the revolution, the rise of Napoleon and the post-revolutionary period (although Clarke argues that this was all part of the same revolution), and so it places the events of 1789 and thereafter into a much wider context than some other books about the period.
Clarke writes in a friendly and often amusing way, drawing analogies with the modern world, which makes the subject come alive and seem fresh and relevant. Clarke’s view, that the revolution didn’t originally intent to overthrow the monarchy, and that it was the political infighting and Terror that followed that derailed any noble (no pun intended) aims that the revolution might have intended, is compelling and intriguing.
I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in the French Revolution or the period of French history before and after the revolution, whether they are coming to it for the first time, or looking for a new perspective on a subject they are familiar with.
A great read and highly recommended!
The book also briefly covers the aftermath of the revolution, the rise of Napoleon and the post-revolutionary period (although Clarke argues that this was all part of the same revolution), and so it places the events of 1789 and thereafter into a much wider context than some other books about the period.
Clarke writes in a friendly and often amusing way, drawing analogies with the modern world, which makes the subject come alive and seem fresh and relevant. Clarke’s view, that the revolution didn’t originally intent to overthrow the monarchy, and that it was the political infighting and Terror that followed that derailed any noble (no pun intended) aims that the revolution might have intended, is compelling and intriguing.
I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in the French Revolution or the period of French history before and after the revolution, whether they are coming to it for the first time, or looking for a new perspective on a subject they are familiar with.
A great read and highly recommended!
March 6, 2019
Having virtually no knowledge of the French Revolution I was looking for an engaging history and Clarke’s book appeared to have good reviews. It’s a lively and engaging account which spends a lot of time setting the scene and perhaps less time dealing with the revolution itself.
Clarke has a thesis, that is that France could have had a stable constitutional monarchy from 1789 which would have saved the blood letting out the Terror and later and the more extreme revolution was inimical to the real of the interests of the people. Of course, I can’t really evaluate this thesis as I have not read other accounts. At least Clarke is very clear about the axe he holds at the grinding wheel.
It’s certainly and engaging and entertaining read. Highly recommended.
Clarke has a thesis, that is that France could have had a stable constitutional monarchy from 1789 which would have saved the blood letting out the Terror and later and the more extreme revolution was inimical to the real of the interests of the people. Of course, I can’t really evaluate this thesis as I have not read other accounts. At least Clarke is very clear about the axe he holds at the grinding wheel.
It’s certainly and engaging and entertaining read. Highly recommended.
September 29, 2021
3.5, it's a well written book that shows in good detail the pre-revolution state of the country; it's interesting and even entertaining but somehow if feels very bias towards monarchy, the epilogue about France suffering of Regis envy is if any very shallow.
November 15, 2019
The short version of this review. Excellent, informative, thoughtful, with an eye for subtle nuances and grey areas. Sometimes funny and always well researched. In short a typical Stephen Clarke book.
How did this happen? Well in short like this:
-We still have medieval goverment systems in the 18th century when they rest of Europe has moved on = this might be a problem (it was)
-Our kings and queens have hidden away in in countryside so they can't keep tabs on the mood in the rest of the country, but hey what is the worst that could happen? Answer: well you kind of die because they have 500 years of pent up frustrations.
-The king wants to reform, but his cabinet isn't feeling it, so they slow walk it (though some very important reforms are made anyway)
-Taxes are cut and education is expanded = progress (finally)
-The king (keen on this whole reform and making a mark thing) holds a nationwide inquiry to hear his subjects worries with regards to roads/hospitals/breadprices/etc = wonderful idea, the people are pleased
-Some people in power aren't feeling these reforms (less taxes = less income for them) = now the people are decidedly NOT pleased
-Some of the kings chief allies in his reforms are fired under pressure of their more conservative colleagues even despite ever growing displeasure from the people = they should have known better
-Robespierre, Danton, Marat arrive on the French stage and they are UPSET (with everyone and everything in case you were wondering) = they set out to benefit themselves and the people don't notice
-The royal family is put under house arrest and blamed for everything under the sun because, well reason = they are fed to the guillotin even without widespread public support
-Robespierre, Danton, Marat promised the people that if only they kill the royal it will all be fine (and behind their backs overturn the reforms that the king had made so they are worse off) = now we enter the time that should be called feed the guillotin.
So in short, lots of bickering and all the succeed in is killing people and changing the days of the year to plant names not no one can keep track of. Who wants to be born on watering can of the second year?
How did this happen? Well in short like this:
-We still have medieval goverment systems in the 18th century when they rest of Europe has moved on = this might be a problem (it was)
-Our kings and queens have hidden away in in countryside so they can't keep tabs on the mood in the rest of the country, but hey what is the worst that could happen? Answer: well you kind of die because they have 500 years of pent up frustrations.
-The king wants to reform, but his cabinet isn't feeling it, so they slow walk it (though some very important reforms are made anyway)
-Taxes are cut and education is expanded = progress (finally)
-The king (keen on this whole reform and making a mark thing) holds a nationwide inquiry to hear his subjects worries with regards to roads/hospitals/breadprices/etc = wonderful idea, the people are pleased
-Some people in power aren't feeling these reforms (less taxes = less income for them) = now the people are decidedly NOT pleased
-Some of the kings chief allies in his reforms are fired under pressure of their more conservative colleagues even despite ever growing displeasure from the people = they should have known better
-Robespierre, Danton, Marat arrive on the French stage and they are UPSET (with everyone and everything in case you were wondering) = they set out to benefit themselves and the people don't notice
-The royal family is put under house arrest and blamed for everything under the sun because, well reason = they are fed to the guillotin even without widespread public support
-Robespierre, Danton, Marat promised the people that if only they kill the royal it will all be fine (and behind their backs overturn the reforms that the king had made so they are worse off) = now we enter the time that should be called feed the guillotin.
So in short, lots of bickering and all the succeed in is killing people and changing the days of the year to plant names not no one can keep track of. Who wants to be born on watering can of the second year?
March 11, 2022
“Don’t forget to show my head to the crowd. It is worth seeing.” - Georges Danton, before being guillotined
What a colossal clusterfuck.
I had been unable to find a good YouTube history video that could concisely summarise what went on during the French Revolution. All of them seemed to jump from an absolute monarchy to the storming of the Bastille to the execution of Louis XVI, and none of them explained a) how these dramatic transitions happened, b) the key figures behind them, and c) how did Robespierre and Napoleon come into it?
The story is long and complicated, full of plots, counter-plots, scandals, uprisings, massacres, assassinations, kangaroo courts, civil conflicts, and colourful characters. Although the main period of the Revolution lasted for longer than I'd thought—around 10 years, with most of the dramatic changes happening between 1789 and 1794—the story is full of 'weeks when decades happen' (as Lenin termed it).
Many of the key events and details are surprising, depressing, gruesome, and make for excellent reading—especially the hour-by-hour accounts of the key days-when-decades-happened. Some of it is darkly funny—Louis XVI's conniving cousin, Prince Louis-Philippe, renamed himself 'Philippe Equality' and joined the republicans, for example, which didn't save him from being guillotined.
Clarke's writing style is humourous but doesn't skimp on the facts. Details always get glossed over when someone tries to write an epic historical account of times like these, and one viewpoint is always emphasised over another, but generally Clarke makes a pretty solid and interesting case that La Révolution is the story of an attempted constitutional monarchy, which was hijacked by populist maniacs manipulating bloodthirsty Parisians. La Révolution est comme Saturne: elle dévore ses propres enfants.
What a colossal clusterfuck.
I had been unable to find a good YouTube history video that could concisely summarise what went on during the French Revolution. All of them seemed to jump from an absolute monarchy to the storming of the Bastille to the execution of Louis XVI, and none of them explained a) how these dramatic transitions happened, b) the key figures behind them, and c) how did Robespierre and Napoleon come into it?
The story is long and complicated, full of plots, counter-plots, scandals, uprisings, massacres, assassinations, kangaroo courts, civil conflicts, and colourful characters. Although the main period of the Revolution lasted for longer than I'd thought—around 10 years, with most of the dramatic changes happening between 1789 and 1794—the story is full of 'weeks when decades happen' (as Lenin termed it).
Many of the key events and details are surprising, depressing, gruesome, and make for excellent reading—especially the hour-by-hour accounts of the key days-when-decades-happened. Some of it is darkly funny—Louis XVI's conniving cousin, Prince Louis-Philippe, renamed himself 'Philippe Equality' and joined the republicans, for example, which didn't save him from being guillotined.
Clarke's writing style is humourous but doesn't skimp on the facts. Details always get glossed over when someone tries to write an epic historical account of times like these, and one viewpoint is always emphasised over another, but generally Clarke makes a pretty solid and interesting case that La Révolution is the story of an attempted constitutional monarchy, which was hijacked by populist maniacs manipulating bloodthirsty Parisians. La Révolution est comme Saturne: elle dévore ses propres enfants.
November 23, 2021
I am not surprised that our local MP recommended one of this author's books in Parliament the other week. It appeals to those who believe that Britain (specifically England) is better than France, not on the basis of facts, but simply out of chauvinism.
Yes, many of the facts are there, and the horrors of the French Revolution were indeed horrors. But the patronising tone of this book really grated. Compared with (say Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama CBE, this comes over as schoolboy finger-pointing and taunting, largely ignoring British history.
For example, Clarke points to the five republics and three empires etc. that have been the French systems of government since 1789, but slides over the changes to the British system in the same time, from a monarchy with real power to a near-presidency, without the name being changed.
All in all, this book annoyed me with its glib and facile nationalism masquerading as history. If you want a history of the French revolution, look elsewhere.
Yes, many of the facts are there, and the horrors of the French Revolution were indeed horrors. But the patronising tone of this book really grated. Compared with (say Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution by Simon Schama CBE, this comes over as schoolboy finger-pointing and taunting, largely ignoring British history.
For example, Clarke points to the five republics and three empires etc. that have been the French systems of government since 1789, but slides over the changes to the British system in the same time, from a monarchy with real power to a near-presidency, without the name being changed.
All in all, this book annoyed me with its glib and facile nationalism masquerading as history. If you want a history of the French revolution, look elsewhere.
December 5, 2023
This is a large volume and the premise is basically, in order to understand France today, start with an understanding of the French revolution - in that he debate that led to a political upheaval in 1789-1793 is no different than the bent toward tension and polarity in today's politics. Nepotism and entitlement, financial enrichment of leadership will always be a danger in those charged with authority and power.
A fascinating read with quirky, strange (from our present day values) daily life of a monarchy from Louise XIV to XVI - stretching 150 years.
A fascinating read with quirky, strange (from our present day values) daily life of a monarchy from Louise XIV to XVI - stretching 150 years.
November 4, 2019
As always Clarke writes in an informative, entertaining style (while not shying away from the horrors of the violence committed by various groups and individuals). I almost wish this had been two books, one about the lead up to the Revolution, and one about the Terrors and the aftermath, so that both subjects could have been given equal time and weight, but that's my only complaint here.
May 5, 2020
Very good. Interesting take on French Revolution, makes points that are fresh and different. Very well written and detailed so a prior knowledge of this subject is needed when reading this. Also adds little comedic elements to ease the tension of the horrific subject throughout the writing but it isn't off-putting as it is needed and can add to the story.
May 20, 2022
well-written infuriatingly monarchist garbage
November 23, 2024
As far as historical non-fiction books go, this was a great read. Despite the, rather morbid, topic, the author creatively and humorously interweaves detailed historical facts and accounts with useful explanations and analogies.
Further, the use of footnotes to expand on points, rather than simply referencing the sources, kept the narrative flowing smoothly.
The division of chapters into sub-sections allowed for easier, more complete reading, especially when reading whilst on a commute.
Overall, the book was very well written, structured, and nurtured to match the author's purpose and keep the reader interested throughout.
Further, the use of footnotes to expand on points, rather than simply referencing the sources, kept the narrative flowing smoothly.
The division of chapters into sub-sections allowed for easier, more complete reading, especially when reading whilst on a commute.
Overall, the book was very well written, structured, and nurtured to match the author's purpose and keep the reader interested throughout.
December 13, 2022
A really enjoyable book to read, as far as history books go. Lost one star because I couldn’t get on board with the conclusion of “France wishes they had Britain’s monarchy”.
May 7, 2023
Easy reading and quite enlightening for someone who knew little about the French Revolution.
February 10, 2019
Great book on French history, the author put a great effort in researching all the sides of the stories presented and put them nicely together.
There wasn't sudden 'Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité'...
There wasn't sudden 'Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité'...
March 3, 2024
the biggest book i’ve read? not sure god will need to fact check that for me but it was interesting :) cool to know the stories behind the street names i walk in everyday
April 12, 2020
The French Revolution and What Went Wrong is more entertainment than history, adhering to an Anglocentric perspective on French culture. On the positive side, if the reader was unfamiliar with the period of the French Revolution, this book is accessible and has some humor that can maintain attention.
On the negative side, most of the humor comes off indifferent and somewhat mean-spirited in my reading. Perhaps my fatal flaw was reading the introduction, which indicates a thesis of sorts. Clarke wrote this book in response to apparent movement of pro-absolute monarch royalists that are nostalgic of the Ancien Régime, or the period before the Revolution. Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't feel that this is really a thing. If it was, Marine Le Pen would be a centrist in this political dynamic. Clarke also concludes that the French suffer from "Regis Envy" because of their obsession with the British Royal family. Well, guess what? A lot of people are obsessed with the British Royal family. I don't understand it, but I do not ascribe it as peculiarly French fixation.
His biases also show through either explicitly or implicitly that constitutional monarchy is the best form of government. Again, he points to the French's supposed Regis Envy, and speaks only positively of the short period after the fall of the Bastille when a constitutional monarchy was established in France. He also takes swipes at the human rights crimes of French and American slave trades when he conveniently leaves out that the British Empire didn't abolish their slave trade until 1833, nearly 20 years after Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo. That is also not to mention the human rights violations of their empire building in India. This sense of somehow being superior forgets so many British evils, such as intentionally starving 3 million Indians to death in the late 19th century.
All in all, it holds some entertainment value, but suffers due to some ill-timed humor, Anglocentric colonialist mentality, and a smug sense of British superiority. He chides French culture, despite supposedly living in it as a expat, and affirms British readers that their constitutional monarchy is great and the longevity of their royal family is meant to be a source of envy.
To that I say: See Brexit.
On the negative side, most of the humor comes off indifferent and somewhat mean-spirited in my reading. Perhaps my fatal flaw was reading the introduction, which indicates a thesis of sorts. Clarke wrote this book in response to apparent movement of pro-absolute monarch royalists that are nostalgic of the Ancien Régime, or the period before the Revolution. Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't feel that this is really a thing. If it was, Marine Le Pen would be a centrist in this political dynamic. Clarke also concludes that the French suffer from "Regis Envy" because of their obsession with the British Royal family. Well, guess what? A lot of people are obsessed with the British Royal family. I don't understand it, but I do not ascribe it as peculiarly French fixation.
His biases also show through either explicitly or implicitly that constitutional monarchy is the best form of government. Again, he points to the French's supposed Regis Envy, and speaks only positively of the short period after the fall of the Bastille when a constitutional monarchy was established in France. He also takes swipes at the human rights crimes of French and American slave trades when he conveniently leaves out that the British Empire didn't abolish their slave trade until 1833, nearly 20 years after Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo. That is also not to mention the human rights violations of their empire building in India. This sense of somehow being superior forgets so many British evils, such as intentionally starving 3 million Indians to death in the late 19th century.
All in all, it holds some entertainment value, but suffers due to some ill-timed humor, Anglocentric colonialist mentality, and a smug sense of British superiority. He chides French culture, despite supposedly living in it as a expat, and affirms British readers that their constitutional monarchy is great and the longevity of their royal family is meant to be a source of envy.
To that I say: See Brexit.
October 2, 2023
I highly enjoyed reading this book to my partner.
Not only because it showed the gritty side of it, how the Revolution didn't actually win the marginalized people a better existence, and how the chaos was mostly used by ambitious rich men to get even richer and more powerful - he also went into depth and detail about the royal family, how the constitutional monarchy of 1789 should've saved France, and about the role of women and slaves. The chapter at the end of the book was solely on their role, yes, but he also included them in every chapter, wasn't shy in calling some men "mansplainers", "misogynists" and the like, and wasn't afraid to call people out on their racism, not coming up with any excuses of "yes but everyone was racist then so it's okay."
The historical background of the monarchy (from Louis XIV to his descendants) was highly informative and in my opinion quite vital in understanding the Revolution - it's sad how often other historians forget that it's almost as important as everything that happened in 1789 alone. Louis XVI didn't deserve what happened to him - neither did the peasants, the real victims of the tyranny that ensued later on.
I highlighted quotes on almost every page of this book. Informative as well as funny - I'll highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about bloody revolutions (and on how to recognise one in the starts right now in the USA...)
Not only because it showed the gritty side of it, how the Revolution didn't actually win the marginalized people a better existence, and how the chaos was mostly used by ambitious rich men to get even richer and more powerful - he also went into depth and detail about the royal family, how the constitutional monarchy of 1789 should've saved France, and about the role of women and slaves. The chapter at the end of the book was solely on their role, yes, but he also included them in every chapter, wasn't shy in calling some men "mansplainers", "misogynists" and the like, and wasn't afraid to call people out on their racism, not coming up with any excuses of "yes but everyone was racist then so it's okay."
The historical background of the monarchy (from Louis XIV to his descendants) was highly informative and in my opinion quite vital in understanding the Revolution - it's sad how often other historians forget that it's almost as important as everything that happened in 1789 alone. Louis XVI didn't deserve what happened to him - neither did the peasants, the real victims of the tyranny that ensued later on.
I highlighted quotes on almost every page of this book. Informative as well as funny - I'll highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about bloody revolutions (and on how to recognise one in the starts right now in the USA...)
November 16, 2024
Entertaining, popular history that retells the story of revolutionary France with historical context. This is a book which overturns myths and definitely made me reconsider what I knew about the French Revolution. The book is well-researched and does a great job of being genuinely informative and funny.
However, especially in the conclusion -- the book comes with it's own agenda / opinion that France should have stuck with a constitutional monarchy like Britain and that if they had gone this route everyone would be better off. It's a deeply intellectually dishonest take to even consider having read the first 1/3 of this book and seeing the corruption, tyranny, and destructiveness of various Louis' leading up to the revolution. The author bases this take almost entirely based on his own opinion -- the only factual case he makes in this direction is that inequality and corruption still exists today in modern France, which is simply a bad faith argument. It also completely ignores the immense achievements and influence of the revolution on France and the world -- there is no mention of the code napoleon, the independence of Latin American, end of the Holy Roman Empire, the Rosetta Stone, the end of slavery -- to name just a few global consequences.
Overall -- I enjoyed reading the book - it's informative and funny --, but disagree with the author's main thesis and wish I'd skipped the conclusion entirely (as that's where he spews the most bullshit).
However, especially in the conclusion -- the book comes with it's own agenda / opinion that France should have stuck with a constitutional monarchy like Britain and that if they had gone this route everyone would be better off. It's a deeply intellectually dishonest take to even consider having read the first 1/3 of this book and seeing the corruption, tyranny, and destructiveness of various Louis' leading up to the revolution. The author bases this take almost entirely based on his own opinion -- the only factual case he makes in this direction is that inequality and corruption still exists today in modern France, which is simply a bad faith argument. It also completely ignores the immense achievements and influence of the revolution on France and the world -- there is no mention of the code napoleon, the independence of Latin American, end of the Holy Roman Empire, the Rosetta Stone, the end of slavery -- to name just a few global consequences.
Overall -- I enjoyed reading the book - it's informative and funny --, but disagree with the author's main thesis and wish I'd skipped the conclusion entirely (as that's where he spews the most bullshit).
February 7, 2019
A rather biased account of the French Revolution written by an Englishman. (Surprise!) You get the sense that Clarke views French people in general as a disorderly and dissolute bunch who at the drop of a pin can't help but surrender completely to their basest animal instincts. He postulates that the correct path for France would have been to let Louis keep his head and his office, and install a proper constitutional monarchy, like its neighbor across the Channel. He even goes so far in the final chapters as to drone on fondly about how England's monarchy, still somehow mostly intact after centuries of theft, scandal, pomp and ridiculousness, is the envy of civilized peoples everywhere.
But of course Clarke's gentle jabs at the French are part of his shtick. If you can get past the arch tone, it is a very readable account of the events leading up to and following the establishment of France's first Republic. It is a useful counterpoint to, and admittedly more accurate than, the "official" version of the Revolution, the one prevalent in the popular imagination that involves Liberty leading a bunch of street urchins to the top of a barricade while reciting Rousseau.
But of course Clarke's gentle jabs at the French are part of his shtick. If you can get past the arch tone, it is a very readable account of the events leading up to and following the establishment of France's first Republic. It is a useful counterpoint to, and admittedly more accurate than, the "official" version of the Revolution, the one prevalent in the popular imagination that involves Liberty leading a bunch of street urchins to the top of a barricade while reciting Rousseau.
July 12, 2020
Clarke's interpretation of the French Revolution is among the most memorable to be published in recent years. His extensive focus (indeed, some 200 pages are committed to the subject) on the reigns of Louis XIV and XV; the rise and rise of the self-interested aristocracy; and establishment of Versailles as the royal court, set this book apart from most other accounts, which are ordinarily obsessed with the events during 1789. Instead, Clarke travels more than 50 years into the past to examine some of the long-fermenting causes of malcontent in the country. Clarke's criticism of populism, 'fake news', and mob rule serve as reminders that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, while his easy-to-follow style of writing set this volume apart from many others in its class. For this reason, I would insist that this text serves as a complement (and not a replacement) to others (Schama, McPhee, Hibbert &c): where the latter provide meticulous details surrounding the events of 1789-95, the former consistently shares the bigger picture, and this level of contextualisation is deeply useful.
December 20, 2022
Possibly The French Revolution and it’s Origins would have been a better title, as about half the book is taken up with describing the gradual changes in the French monarchy and society, and how it led to the revolution. This is quite interesting, but it does mean that the description of the Revolution itself is somewhat less detailed than you might expect from a book of this length. But it is an informative and interesting guide to this fascinating subject, though there’s a certain amount of repetition which could probably have been omitted (I feel we don’t really need more than one description of what it was like to be broken on the wheel for instance). Also some interesting thoughts about post revolutionary France, and what might have happened if the moderates had retained control of the revolution.
February 26, 2021
A very engaging and informative book... meticulously well researched and detailed, telling the story of the French revolution and the centuries working up to it in an accessible, narrative style with Louis XVI as France's tragic hero. Very good balance of sweeping, historical big picture and small, colourful anecdotes. The bibliography at the end is intimidating in its length.
One star removed because there's a weird running theme, which the author really dives into in the epilogue, of romantic nostalgia for the monarchy, which he seems to equate with a beloved touchstone for a nation's culture and heritage, and which every country without one is poorer for not having. Which seems... an odd conclusion to draw from the French Revolution, and from history in general.
Overall a fine book, would recommend.
One star removed because there's a weird running theme, which the author really dives into in the epilogue, of romantic nostalgia for the monarchy, which he seems to equate with a beloved touchstone for a nation's culture and heritage, and which every country without one is poorer for not having. Which seems... an odd conclusion to draw from the French Revolution, and from history in general.
Overall a fine book, would recommend.
August 23, 2018
Love Stephen Clarke’s style, his history books are as easy and fun to read as are his novels while being interesting and well documented.
He is debunking quite a few myths about the Revolution, shows how fake news and populism lead to constant bloodbaths. He is shedding a positive light on Louis XVI (and a bad one of almost everybody else). He also explains how France would be much better off today if the country had stuck with the constitutional monarchy of 1791, which is what most French wanted...
He is debunking quite a few myths about the Revolution, shows how fake news and populism lead to constant bloodbaths. He is shedding a positive light on Louis XVI (and a bad one of almost everybody else). He also explains how France would be much better off today if the country had stuck with the constitutional monarchy of 1791, which is what most French wanted...
October 3, 2018
The author's writing is always so witty, entertaining and enjoyable but even he found that difficult with the politics. With half of the book from Louis XIV to XVI which I already knew a lot about my patience has disappeared when I got to the harder going actual revolution. Then all of a sudden it was over & we'd covered 100 years in a few pages. It was intetesting but probably not an interesting enough subject.
January 24, 2019
Took me longer than expected because I think the book is huge! But I learned so much and it gave me a new perspective on the social situation that lead to the revolution. Stephen Clarke’s writing helped me understand a subject that could have easily been insanely tedious and instead I enjoyed his humor and his comparisons to actuality.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 85 reviews