Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 30

[cahn]

In which, despite the title, I would like to be told about the English Revolution, which is yet another casualty of my extremely poor history education :P :)

Also, this is probably the place to say that RMSE opened with three Fritz-fics, all of which I think are readable with minimum canon knowledge:

The Boy Who Lived - if you knew about the doomed escape-from-Prussia-that-didn't happen and tragic death of Fritz's boyfriend Hans Hermann von Katte, you may not have known about Peter Keith, the third young man who conspired to escape Prussia -- and the only one who actually did. This is his story. I think readable without canon knowledge except what I just said here.

Challenge Yourself to Relax - My gift, I posted about this before! Corporate AU with my problematic fave, Fritz' brother Heinrich, who's still Fritz's l'autre moi-meme even in corporate AU. Readable without canon knowledge if one has familiarity with the corporate world and the dysfunctions thereof.

The Rise and Fall of the RendezvousWithFame Exchange - Fandom AU with BNF fanfic writer Voltaire, exchange mod Fritz, and the inevitable meltdown. (I wrote this one and am quite proud of the terrible physics-adjacent pun contained within.) Readable without canon knowledge if one has familiarity with fandom and the dysfunctions thereof :P

Comments

Re: Reading group: In the Shadow of the Empress - second half of ch 3

[felis]

Oh, wow. That is some confidently biased tale by Goldstone, which can't be derived from the Robinson letter at all - but taking another look at Mahan, I see that she got that take mostly from him, although she made it look worse and doesn't mention the Schwerin part (?), which Mahan does include. Mahan totally misrepresents Coxe/Robinson, though, since neither Arneth nor Carlyle - his other two sources in the footnote - say anything of the sort.

Looking at Carlyle, I see that he does not believe Maupertuis, though! That's probably why he doesn't give the quote - he thinks Maupertuis made himself bigger by saying he was with the King's suite when he wasn't, and refers to Robinson calling it a "blind story" as evidence - which I think must be the "blind account" Robinson mentions, and which Carlyle misinterprets IMO, because I think Robinson means that Maupertuis did not give any details the first time around, not that he told a fairytale. (Carlyle also calls Fritz' whole adventure his "Disappearance into Fairy-land", because there were so many fables being told about it, ha.)

Otherwise, I'm totally with you re: Fritz taunting the hussars and the lack of clarity in the Robinson letter / Maupertuis' tale and why Maupertuis might have taken it differently than intended.

re: Robert Keith - I sorted out the three different Robert Keiths a while ago, but I don't remember if I came across the wrong younger brother one in that context. Will try to keep in mind that you are looking for a pre-1999 instance, though.

Re: Reading group: In the Shadow of the Empress - second half of ch 3

[mildred_of_midgard]

Oh, wow. That is some confidently biased tale by Goldstone

Why do you think we're getting so salty about her, lol! This is the one where cahn was like, "Even *I* know how whacked that is!" and I was like, "Is there a point to reading this book?"

Here's what Goldstone goes on to say about Schwerin's role in all this:

By rights, that should have been the end of any future dreams of glory the Prussian king was harboring, but fortunately for Frederick, his soldiers did not have the same option. His general knew quite well that if he abandoned his post as his sovereign had, he would be executed for treason. Also, he had faith in his infantry.

Schwerin talk Fritz into leaving? Never! Schwerin was innocently abandoned by his cowardly monarch, who had never seen combat before.

and refers to Robinson calling it a "blind story" as evidence - which I think must be the "blind account" Robinson mentions, and which Carlyle misinterprets IMO, because I think Robinson means that Maupertuis did not give any details the first time around, not that he told a fairytale.

I wasn't familiar with the phrase "blind story," so I looked it up. The definition given by the OED is "a story without point," (also repeated in other 19th century dictionaries), but the examples seem to involve unsubstantiated stories:

He insinuates a blind story about something and some body.
This story which in truth is but a blind one.

Then I found an English-Dutch dictionary from 1749, and it defines "blind story" as "een sprookje, een vertelling, daar geen hoofd noch staert aan is," which Google helpfully translates back into English for me as "a fairy tale, a tale to which there is neither head nor tail." (I've got to say, my Dutch and Swedish are getting a whole lot better thanks to German! I got all of that except "sprookje".) Oh, and an English dictionary for French speakers from 1793, which translates "blind story" as "une conte borgne," which Google tells me is "a one-eyed story, a ridiculous, improbable tale in which we don't believe."

But rereading the footnote for the umpteenth time, I agree that it's hard for me to read Robinson as not believing the second part, as opposed to saying Maupertuis left out all the incriminating parts the first time.

(Carlyle also calls Fritz' whole adventure his "Disappearance into Fairy-land", because there were so many fables being told about it, ha.)

Carlyle is hilarious, I'll give him that. I would give anything for him not to be so unreadable (particularly the Gutenberg version I have, which replaces italics with capslock.)

Oh, speaking of capslock, I was lolling at Goldstone's account of the 1738 Austrian encounter with the Ottomans near Belgrade: "The Imperial side WON."

Tell us how you really feel, Goldstone.

Will try to keep in mind that you are looking for a pre-1999 instance, though.

Thanks! You found me so many Peter Keith occurrences, I figure you're the best person to ask to keep an eye out for a Robert Keith.