2Tess_W
Chapter 2 felt like a "bridge" chapter, connecting the backstories of Aristide and Renée. To sum up Saccard, I would describe him as greedy and manipulative, driven by an insatiable desire for power and wealth. Renée, on the other hand, is more complex. While she may seem decadent and self-centered on the surface, there’s a deeper layer to her character that hints at inner conflict and dissatisfaction with her life.
Chapter 3 raises an interesting point about the relationship between Renée and Maxime. Technically, they aren’t blood relatives, so their affair wouldn’t be illegal by today’s standards. However, in the 1870s, it was likely forbidden by both church and societal norms, making it quite scandalous.
While doing some historical research for the period (which I often do when reading historical fiction), I found some information that differs from the introduction to the novel. I discovered that the government, not Zola himself, actually halted the serialization of the book due to its controversial themes, so several sources say. I’ve also come across reports, though I can't confirm them, that Zola had to flee Paris for a time because of the publication.
Chapter 3 raises an interesting point about the relationship between Renée and Maxime. Technically, they aren’t blood relatives, so their affair wouldn’t be illegal by today’s standards. However, in the 1870s, it was likely forbidden by both church and societal norms, making it quite scandalous.
While doing some historical research for the period (which I often do when reading historical fiction), I found some information that differs from the introduction to the novel. I discovered that the government, not Zola himself, actually halted the serialization of the book due to its controversial themes, so several sources say. I’ve also come across reports, though I can't confirm them, that Zola had to flee Paris for a time because of the publication.
3booksaplenty1949
A great line in Ch 2, apropos of Aristide’s early days in Paris: “Etre pauvre à Paris, c’est être pauvre deux fois”—“To be poor in Paris is to be poor twice over.”
