Negative Positive
Title: Arrogance and paranoia
Review: Otto Scott's approach to Robespierre is a rather unusual one. He falls into the trap of using error-filled and discredited sources, but that is not unusual. Many writers on the French Revolution do that. What is strange is his attitude toward the goals of the Revolution. Most writers concede that the revolutionaires were sincerely hoping for the betterment of all French citizens. But Scott seems to have a thread of paranoia running throughout the entire book. His fear seems to be that the ordinary, working class Frenchman will now have the same rights as his "betters". His terror of mob rule is so intense that he cannot be in any way objective. The book has a great many mistakes and is at times unintentionally hilarious. Avoid it by all means unless you really know your history.
Is the review positive or negative? 