Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: The Court of the Midnight King

> Don't! It is absolutely abysmal! It is quite the worst piece of
> fantastical claptrap that I have read in years! It is more about
> myth, fantasy and witchcraft than it is about Richard, with
> egotistical insertions of self at intervals. Not particularly well
> written either, and full of events that frankly make little or
> sense. Absolutely not one for a serios Ricardian!
> Brunhild

Well...I have to totally disagree with you there Brunhild - I thought it was
very well-written, imaginative and an unusual take on the traditional story.
It had a magical element because it was a fantasy.

Could be a problem if you don't like fantasy! <ggg>

Jessica

READ my book Children of the Shaman (Feb 2003) from all good book stores and
Amazon.com at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451459113/qid%3D1051027286/sr%3D11-1
/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-2694528-9682532

--- In , "jessica RYDILL"
<la@l...> wrote:
> > Don't! It is absolutely abysmal! It is quite the worst piece of
> > fantastical claptrap that I have read in years! It is more about
> > myth, fantasy and witchcraft than it is about Richard, with
> > egotistical insertions of self at intervals. Not particularly
well
> > written either, and full of events that frankly make little or
> > sense. Absolutely not one for a serios Ricardian!
> > Brunhild
>
> Well...I have to totally disagree with you there Brunhild - I
thought it was
> very well-written, imaginative and an unusual take on the
traditional story.
> It had a magical element because it was a fantasy.
>
> Could be a problem if you don't like fantasy! <ggg>
>
> Jessica
>
Well, like art, the beauty of literature is in the reader. I found
too many errors for it to be well written, though it had its
moments. I had expected a novel on R3, so naturally I was
unimpressed at getting something rather different. I shouldn't have
minded quite so much had it not been so unutterably SILLY.

I had expected a novel on R3, so naturally I was
> unimpressed at getting something rather different. I shouldn't have
> minded quite so much had it not been so unutterably SILLY.

It's odd because to me it WAS a novel about Richard III. Not, it is true, a
strictly historical novel; but surely all historical novels have some
element of fantasy about them because they are creating scenes and dialogue
that chroniclers and records omitted.

Also I don't agree that it was silly. I do think it involved
wish-fulfilment (or wishful thinking) but in a way that worked within the
confines of its own logic. Recently on this board people have been
discussing the role of alchemy at the court of Edward IV, and that (alchemy)
in itself is quite a fantastical notion.

I was quite intrigued that the author introduced a theme relating to
Goddess-worship, and focussed on the role of women. In many historical
novels, women are given a freedom they simply did not have in the 15th
century. My feeling has always been that to write a strictly historical
novel about Richard, one would need to follow an austere course indeed. It
is quite difficult to access the mind-set of people (in England) who had
limited access to the learning of the Renaissance, who had not experienced
religious reform, either Protestant or Catholic, and who also had limited
experience of other races, not to mention religions.

Another (very interesting) book that came out recently is Julian Rathbone's
"Kings of Albion" - a rather unusual version of King Solomon's Mines in
which sophisticated visitors from India explore England during the time of
the Wars of the Roses. Now that is at points deliberately extremely silly,
but once again the book with its intentional anachronisms and jokes (and,
alas, traditional view of Richard) makes an interesting prism through which
to view the strangeness of the 15th century.

Jessica

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "jessica RYDILL"
> <la@l...> wrote:
> > > Don't! It is absolutely abysmal! It is quite the worst piece of
> > > fantastical claptrap that I have read in years! It is more about
> > > myth, fantasy and witchcraft than it is about Richard, with
> > > egotistical insertions of self at intervals. Not particularly
> well
> > > written either, and full of events that frankly make little or
> > > sense. Absolutely not one for a serios Ricardian!
> > > Brunhild
> >
> > Well...I have to totally disagree with you there Brunhild - I
> thought it was
> > very well-written, imaginative and an unusual take on the
> traditional story.
> > It had a magical element because it was a fantasy.
> >
> > Could be a problem if you don't like fantasy! <ggg>
> >
> > Jessica
> >
> Well, like art, the beauty of literature is in the reader. I found
> too many errors for it to be well written, though it had its
> moments. I had expected a novel on R3, so naturally I was
> unimpressed at getting something rather different. I shouldn't have
> minded quite so much had it not been so unutterably SILLY.

Well, I'll probably regret thiss, but you've all got me so intrigued
now I've actually ordered it.

Marie