Title: The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette
Author: Carolly Erickson
Genre: Historical Fiction
Publisher: St. Martin's Griffin
Published: 2006
Pages: 368
Rating: 2 out of 10
When I picked up this book at my used bookstore, I looked skeptically at
the cover. It looked to me like another fluffy, shallow book about a
princess or queen, who is portrayed in a fancy dress with her head cut
out of the frame (so inventive). However, I reminded myself that you
cannot judge books by their covers, and bought it anyways. Sadly, my
suspicions were completely accurate.
This is the fictional diary
of Marie Antoinette, beginning just a little before she is engaged to
the dauphin Louis XVI of France. Marie continues writing in the journal,
about her marriage to a dry, piteous boy who she develops a friendship
with, her affair with a dashing count, the birth of her children, and
her eventual betrayal and imprisonment as the Revolution washes over
France.
I love the French Revolution, but this book captured
almost none of it. Rather, we see the excessively decadent lifestyles of
Marie and the ladies of her court that led to, or at least helped speed
up, the ruin of France's finances and economy. By the time the book
starts mentioning the revolutionaries, we still know very little about
them. If I had known nothing of history and this book was my first
introduction to anything French Revolution, I would have assumed that a
mob of citizens simply gathered together to execute Marie Antoinette,
and that was all there was to it.
Normally, I dislike the diary
format. Maybe it is just because there were
so many of them when I was
in middle school (Dear America, My America, Dear Canada, Royal Diaries,
and many many more), but I almost always find them childish. And this
one was no exception. If Erickson had written this book without the
diary style, I think it would have been just slightly better - a
star better, maybe?
The Hidden Diary of Marie Antoinette is
implausible, weak, contrived, and simply uninteresting. Look all you
want for a strong, solid portrayal of the infamous queen that takes you
"deep into the psyche of France's doomed queen," as the back cover
promises, but expect to be disappointed. In fact, 'deep' is the precise
opposite word I would use to describe this book.
Every character
was sketchy and badly written, predictable, and lifeless. Marie was
painted as being spoiled and vain in the beginning, and senselessly
ignorant (but in a good way!) in the end. The author's method of
illustrating her heroine's mistake of being so selfish and lavish was
extremely obvious.
Marie would write in her diary "Today I ordered
everyone to wear feathers, and a few hours later, the shops were all
sold out. We had to hide the palace birds to protect them..."
Or "I have no idea what all of our palace balls cost, but I'm sure it's a lot!"
These are not actual quotes, as I didn't take note of them while reading, but I am writing them from memory.
The
author would slip in these passing side notes as if she was counting
pages and had made a note to herself saying: "Write something about
Marie's spending every 5 pages." It seemed robotic and completely
lacking in genuineness.
Louis, Marie's odd and anti-social
husband, was the only character that worked, in a very small way. He is
reclusive, and does not appear in the story all that much. This was the
only reason he was half-way - no, quarter-way - believable. The lack of
getting to know him fit his character, luckily for the author.
The
character of Amelie, Marie's traitorous chambermaid, was laughable.
Literally. I couldn't decide between groaning or laughing at the way
Erickson wrote her. It was just ghastly. She was
really that bad.
For most of the book, Amelie is just like a Mean
Girl in high school. Marie hates her and is jealous of her, but is also
afraid of her and finds herself longing for Amelie's approval. Must all
shallow books have a snotty Mean Girl and return to high school? Well, I
suppose that that is this book's level.
But anyways, by the end of the book, Amelie has joined the revolutionaries and is guarding Marie in her prison cell.
She
jabs clumsily written insults at Marie, always 100% the bad guy. When
her husband dies, she "smiles and doesn't care." She also seems to be
some high ranking person, because everyone follows her orders, though in
reality a young woman would never have had the authority to do all the
things she does.
Amelie will be joining my list of 'Worst Villains of All Time.'
Marie's romantic interests, first in her servant
Eric and later in Axel, were tedious to say the least. There was a lot
of eye rolling from me. In the beginning, I thought that the author was
simply writing it this way to illustrate how immature Marie was, but by
the time we reach the end, where Erickson is very obviously portraying
Marie as grown up, strong, etc etc, she is still the same silly girl.
The
whole thing with Axel confused me. I was very sure that Erickson was
setting him up to the be a bad guy later. He makes careless remarks
often, most notably when he laughs about a group of peasants fighting to
the death over a few crumbs, and then says "You should see the really
poor ones."
However, maybe the author forgot she had this idea. Or
maybe she really does think that peasants killing each other over bread
crumbs isn't really that bad.
Whatever the reason, Axel is the hero of the story.
There
was also some pointless sidetracking about Axel's former mistress
finding Marie, telling her that if she loves him, she will break up with
him, etc. etc., Marie doesn't do it, and there are no
repercussions.
It was funny how Marie and her court were 'The
Good Guys' and the revolutionaries were all 'The Bad Guys.' Crisp black
and white lines were drawn, which is always unrealistic, inaccurate, and
insensitive.
With this ridiculous attempt at "history," Erickson is an author I hope to never come across again.
