Ricardian Novels
Ricardian Novels
2003-07-30 16:36:03
I haven't read 'Under the Hog' or 'The Court of the Midnight King'
(though I might give the latter a try just to find out how truely
awful it is!) but there is a more general issue emerging as to the
extent to which novelists attempt to depict the period (as far as
possible) as it really was and try to get into the mind-set of the
times, or simply give vent to their own 20th/21st century prejudices.
Just as an example, to my mind Edward V is nearly always depicted in
far too infantile a fashion (usually being hugged and fussed over by
his aunt Anne Neville). A boy of 12, rising 13, would surely be a
good deal more mentally mature and self-reliant than his modern
counterpart. An upper-class boy would by then have lived apart from
his parents for several years, and in an atmosphere which was
intended, among other things, to get him away from feminine cosseting
and toughen him up. Let us not forget that Henry V was on campaign in
Wales at 14 and no more than 15 when he fought through the Battle of
Shrewsbury with an arrowhead embedded in his cheekbone. Equally,
Edward V's contemporary, James IV of Scots, ruled without a regency
from the age of 15. One element in Richard's seizure of power and in
the possible elimination of Edward V was surely that Edward would be
of age to rule in his own right or plot against Richard on his own
behalf in only 3-4 years.
Equally, in 'The Seventh Son', we have Edward of Middleham, aged
seven, being fussed over and indulged by his mother and nurse. Yet
seven was the traditional age for beginning knightly training -
surely his father would have something to say on this score?
Ann
(though I might give the latter a try just to find out how truely
awful it is!) but there is a more general issue emerging as to the
extent to which novelists attempt to depict the period (as far as
possible) as it really was and try to get into the mind-set of the
times, or simply give vent to their own 20th/21st century prejudices.
Just as an example, to my mind Edward V is nearly always depicted in
far too infantile a fashion (usually being hugged and fussed over by
his aunt Anne Neville). A boy of 12, rising 13, would surely be a
good deal more mentally mature and self-reliant than his modern
counterpart. An upper-class boy would by then have lived apart from
his parents for several years, and in an atmosphere which was
intended, among other things, to get him away from feminine cosseting
and toughen him up. Let us not forget that Henry V was on campaign in
Wales at 14 and no more than 15 when he fought through the Battle of
Shrewsbury with an arrowhead embedded in his cheekbone. Equally,
Edward V's contemporary, James IV of Scots, ruled without a regency
from the age of 15. One element in Richard's seizure of power and in
the possible elimination of Edward V was surely that Edward would be
of age to rule in his own right or plot against Richard on his own
behalf in only 3-4 years.
Equally, in 'The Seventh Son', we have Edward of Middleham, aged
seven, being fussed over and indulged by his mother and nurse. Yet
seven was the traditional age for beginning knightly training -
surely his father would have something to say on this score?
Ann
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-30 17:00:15
--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I haven't read 'Under the Hog' or 'The Court of the Midnight King'
> (though I might give the latter a try just to find out how truely
> awful it is!) but there is a more general issue emerging as to the
> extent to which novelists attempt to depict the period (as far as
> possible) as it really was and try to get into the mind-set of the
> times, or simply give vent to their own 20th/21st century
prejudices.
>
> Just as an example, to my mind Edward V is nearly always depicted
in
> far too infantile a fashion (usually being hugged and fussed over
by
> his aunt Anne Neville). A boy of 12, rising 13, would surely be a
> good deal more mentally mature and self-reliant than his modern
> counterpart. An upper-class boy would by then have lived apart from
> his parents for several years, and in an atmosphere which was
> intended, among other things, to get him away from feminine
cosseting
> and toughen him up. Let us not forget that Henry V was on campaign
in
> Wales at 14 and no more than 15 when he fought through the Battle
of
> Shrewsbury with an arrowhead embedded in his cheekbone. Equally,
> Edward V's contemporary, James IV of Scots, ruled without a regency
> from the age of 15. One element in Richard's seizure of power and
in
> the possible elimination of Edward V was surely that Edward would
be
> of age to rule in his own right or plot against Richard on his own
> behalf in only 3-4 years.
>
> Equally, in 'The Seventh Son', we have Edward of Middleham, aged
> seven, being fussed over and indulged by his mother and nurse. Yet
> seven was the traditional age for beginning knightly training -
> surely his father would have something to say on this score?
>
> Ann
I do agree. I find a lot of 'historical' novels unreadable simply
because they are peopled by 20/21 century people in funny clothes.
Lack of proper understanding of the period has a lot to do with it,
but it's not only fantasy novels that fall into the 'fancy'category.
Many of the writers WANT to believe their heroine/ hero was untainted
by what they themselves perceive as the superstitions of their age
(being often blissfully unaware of the superstitions of their own).
However, quite apart from making the books implausible it also makes
them ephemeral, as in another generation many of the heroine/hero's
attitudes will be right out of fashion again. Whilst I'm all for
strong women (and the 15th century was full of them), am I the only
one totally cheesed off with the regulation 'feisty heroine'?
I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't be
understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
patterns and it's very hard have characters using very contemporary
English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become much
too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of the
time.
I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of the
fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous that
animated the world before science explained everything.
I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst us
waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
Aren't there?
Marie
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I haven't read 'Under the Hog' or 'The Court of the Midnight King'
> (though I might give the latter a try just to find out how truely
> awful it is!) but there is a more general issue emerging as to the
> extent to which novelists attempt to depict the period (as far as
> possible) as it really was and try to get into the mind-set of the
> times, or simply give vent to their own 20th/21st century
prejudices.
>
> Just as an example, to my mind Edward V is nearly always depicted
in
> far too infantile a fashion (usually being hugged and fussed over
by
> his aunt Anne Neville). A boy of 12, rising 13, would surely be a
> good deal more mentally mature and self-reliant than his modern
> counterpart. An upper-class boy would by then have lived apart from
> his parents for several years, and in an atmosphere which was
> intended, among other things, to get him away from feminine
cosseting
> and toughen him up. Let us not forget that Henry V was on campaign
in
> Wales at 14 and no more than 15 when he fought through the Battle
of
> Shrewsbury with an arrowhead embedded in his cheekbone. Equally,
> Edward V's contemporary, James IV of Scots, ruled without a regency
> from the age of 15. One element in Richard's seizure of power and
in
> the possible elimination of Edward V was surely that Edward would
be
> of age to rule in his own right or plot against Richard on his own
> behalf in only 3-4 years.
>
> Equally, in 'The Seventh Son', we have Edward of Middleham, aged
> seven, being fussed over and indulged by his mother and nurse. Yet
> seven was the traditional age for beginning knightly training -
> surely his father would have something to say on this score?
>
> Ann
I do agree. I find a lot of 'historical' novels unreadable simply
because they are peopled by 20/21 century people in funny clothes.
Lack of proper understanding of the period has a lot to do with it,
but it's not only fantasy novels that fall into the 'fancy'category.
Many of the writers WANT to believe their heroine/ hero was untainted
by what they themselves perceive as the superstitions of their age
(being often blissfully unaware of the superstitions of their own).
However, quite apart from making the books implausible it also makes
them ephemeral, as in another generation many of the heroine/hero's
attitudes will be right out of fashion again. Whilst I'm all for
strong women (and the 15th century was full of them), am I the only
one totally cheesed off with the regulation 'feisty heroine'?
I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't be
understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
patterns and it's very hard have characters using very contemporary
English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become much
too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of the
time.
I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of the
fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous that
animated the world before science explained everything.
I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst us
waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
Aren't there?
Marie
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-30 19:20:07
>
> I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
> issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't
be
> understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
> patterns and it's very hard have characters using very contemporary
> English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
> One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
much
> too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
> have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
the
> time.
I agree entirely. One writer of 14th century mysteries has a
character describing the scene of one set of murders as 'a grotty
little convent'! I don't like gadzookery (wonderful word!) either (I
got impatient with 'We Speak No Treason' on that score), but it ought
to be perfectly possible to steer a middle course by using rather
formal modern English with perhaps the odd archaic word, just to give
a flavour of a different age. And you are correct too about modern
writers tending to forget the formalities of earlier ages - one
obvious example is that upper class young ladies would be heavily
chaperoned, so that any writer seeking to involve the heroine in a
clinch with her beloved is going to have to get the chaperone out of
the way.
Ann (currently struggling to write a Ricardian novel, in which, inter
alia, the hero meets with disaster because he forgets that the
chaperone is hovering!)
> I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
> issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't
be
> understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
> patterns and it's very hard have characters using very contemporary
> English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
> One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
much
> too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
> have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
the
> time.
I agree entirely. One writer of 14th century mysteries has a
character describing the scene of one set of murders as 'a grotty
little convent'! I don't like gadzookery (wonderful word!) either (I
got impatient with 'We Speak No Treason' on that score), but it ought
to be perfectly possible to steer a middle course by using rather
formal modern English with perhaps the odd archaic word, just to give
a flavour of a different age. And you are correct too about modern
writers tending to forget the formalities of earlier ages - one
obvious example is that upper class young ladies would be heavily
chaperoned, so that any writer seeking to involve the heroine in a
clinch with her beloved is going to have to get the chaperone out of
the way.
Ann (currently struggling to write a Ricardian novel, in which, inter
alia, the hero meets with disaster because he forgets that the
chaperone is hovering!)
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-30 21:21:22
--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I haven't read 'Under the Hog' or 'The Court of the Midnight King'
> (though I might give the latter a try just to find out how truely
> awful it is!) but there is a more general issue emerging as to the
> extent to which novelists attempt to depict the period (as far as
> possible) as it really was and try to get into the mind-set of the
> times, or simply give vent to their own 20th/21st century
prejudices.
>
> Just as an example, to my mind Edward V is nearly always depicted
in
> far too infantile a fashion (usually being hugged and fussed over
by
> his aunt Anne Neville). A boy of 12, rising 13, would surely be a
> good deal more mentally mature and self-reliant than his modern
> counterpart. An upper-class boy would by then have lived apart
from
> his parents for several years, and in an atmosphere which was
> intended, among other things, to get him away from feminine
cosseting
> and toughen him up.
I absolutely agree. He had his own household for some time, and
whilst he was under the tutelage of Anthony Woodville he was a
renowned knight and would almost certainly have begun the boy's
training prety comprehensively. It would have done his own
reputation no favours not to.
> Let us not forget that Henry V was on campaign in
> Wales at 14 and no more than 15 when he fought through the Battle
of
> Shrewsbury with an arrowhead embedded in his cheekbone. Equally,
> Edward V's contemporary, James IV of Scots, ruled without a
regency
> from the age of 15. One element in Richard's seizure of power and
in
> the possible elimination of Edward V was surely that Edward would
be
> of age to rule in his own right or plot against Richard on his own
> behalf in only 3-4 years.
If Richard DID kill him (and it's a big IF, of course) then this
would surely have been a huge factor. He must have seen the boy as
maturing sufficiently for it to be too late to weld him into
something malleable himself.
>
> Equally, in 'The Seventh Son', we have Edward of Middleham, aged
> seven, being fussed over and indulged by his mother and nurse. Yet
> seven was the traditional age for beginning knightly training -
> surely his father would have something to say on this score?
Havn't read that. Is it good?
Brunhild
>
> Ann
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I haven't read 'Under the Hog' or 'The Court of the Midnight King'
> (though I might give the latter a try just to find out how truely
> awful it is!) but there is a more general issue emerging as to the
> extent to which novelists attempt to depict the period (as far as
> possible) as it really was and try to get into the mind-set of the
> times, or simply give vent to their own 20th/21st century
prejudices.
>
> Just as an example, to my mind Edward V is nearly always depicted
in
> far too infantile a fashion (usually being hugged and fussed over
by
> his aunt Anne Neville). A boy of 12, rising 13, would surely be a
> good deal more mentally mature and self-reliant than his modern
> counterpart. An upper-class boy would by then have lived apart
from
> his parents for several years, and in an atmosphere which was
> intended, among other things, to get him away from feminine
cosseting
> and toughen him up.
I absolutely agree. He had his own household for some time, and
whilst he was under the tutelage of Anthony Woodville he was a
renowned knight and would almost certainly have begun the boy's
training prety comprehensively. It would have done his own
reputation no favours not to.
> Let us not forget that Henry V was on campaign in
> Wales at 14 and no more than 15 when he fought through the Battle
of
> Shrewsbury with an arrowhead embedded in his cheekbone. Equally,
> Edward V's contemporary, James IV of Scots, ruled without a
regency
> from the age of 15. One element in Richard's seizure of power and
in
> the possible elimination of Edward V was surely that Edward would
be
> of age to rule in his own right or plot against Richard on his own
> behalf in only 3-4 years.
If Richard DID kill him (and it's a big IF, of course) then this
would surely have been a huge factor. He must have seen the boy as
maturing sufficiently for it to be too late to weld him into
something malleable himself.
>
> Equally, in 'The Seventh Son', we have Edward of Middleham, aged
> seven, being fussed over and indulged by his mother and nurse. Yet
> seven was the traditional age for beginning knightly training -
> surely his father would have something to say on this score?
Havn't read that. Is it good?
Brunhild
>
> Ann
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-30 21:26:27
>
> I agree entirely. One writer of 14th century mysteries has a
> character describing the scene of one set of murders as 'a grotty
> little convent'! I don't like gadzookery (wonderful word!) either
(I
> got impatient with 'We Speak No Treason' on that score), but it
ought
> to be perfectly possible to steer a middle course by using rather
> formal modern English with perhaps the odd archaic word, just to
give
> a flavour of a different age. And you are correct too about modern
> writers tending to forget the formalities of earlier ages - one
> obvious example is that upper class young ladies would be heavily
> chaperoned, so that any writer seeking to involve the heroine in a
> clinch with her beloved is going to have to get the chaperone out
of
> the way.
>
> Ann (currently struggling to write a Ricardian novel, in which,
inter
> alia, the hero meets with disaster because he forgets that the
> chaperone is hovering!)
Have you read Rathbone's last English king? Only the 2nd worst I
have ever read - the first managed 2 pages! This one I struggled
through over 200 before throwing it on the floor and jumping on it!
I am sorry but a Harold who commits incest with his sister (OK, so a
novelist has to be different!) and refers to attractive women
as "foxy chicks" just isn't the kind of Harold I want to read about!
> I agree entirely. One writer of 14th century mysteries has a
> character describing the scene of one set of murders as 'a grotty
> little convent'! I don't like gadzookery (wonderful word!) either
(I
> got impatient with 'We Speak No Treason' on that score), but it
ought
> to be perfectly possible to steer a middle course by using rather
> formal modern English with perhaps the odd archaic word, just to
give
> a flavour of a different age. And you are correct too about modern
> writers tending to forget the formalities of earlier ages - one
> obvious example is that upper class young ladies would be heavily
> chaperoned, so that any writer seeking to involve the heroine in a
> clinch with her beloved is going to have to get the chaperone out
of
> the way.
>
> Ann (currently struggling to write a Ricardian novel, in which,
inter
> alia, the hero meets with disaster because he forgets that the
> chaperone is hovering!)
Have you read Rathbone's last English king? Only the 2nd worst I
have ever read - the first managed 2 pages! This one I struggled
through over 200 before throwing it on the floor and jumping on it!
I am sorry but a Harold who commits incest with his sister (OK, so a
novelist has to be different!) and refers to attractive women
as "foxy chicks" just isn't the kind of Harold I want to read about!
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-30 21:34:32
Whilst I'm all for
> strong women (and the 15th century was full of them), am I the
only
> one totally cheesed off with the regulation 'feisty heroine'?
What happens, though, when the real woman - say Cecily Neville, or
Elizabeth I or Caterina Sforza - was "feisty"? Would an author have
to "feminise" her to fit a different 21st century construct?
>
> I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
> issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't
be
> understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
> patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
contemporary
> English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
> One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
much
> too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
> have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
the
> time.
True to a certain extent, but some periods - say the dark ages in
Europe - have such an unknown language style that to attempt any
kind of novel in it or suggesting it must be well night impossible.
Plus formal language in public is fine - heroines are, in any case -
often queens and noble women, and so would speak formally in public
as a matter of course, regardless of period. But in bed with the
lover, do you really think that slipping into something more natural
would be wrong simply because it has modern overtones? I don't agree
with you on that one. Having read novels which aspire to reproduce
a semblance of "medieval speak" I have found that they have been
among the worst written, because they are too self-conscious and
deliberate, and real life simply isn't liek that. The art is not to
go too far the other way - like Rathbone.
> I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of
the
> fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous
that
> animated the world before science explained everything.
This is one I have been struggling with, and the jury is still out!
Brunhild
> I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst
us
> waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
> Aren't there?
>
> Marie
> strong women (and the 15th century was full of them), am I the
only
> one totally cheesed off with the regulation 'feisty heroine'?
What happens, though, when the real woman - say Cecily Neville, or
Elizabeth I or Caterina Sforza - was "feisty"? Would an author have
to "feminise" her to fit a different 21st century construct?
>
> I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
> issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't
be
> understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
> patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
contemporary
> English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
> One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
much
> too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
> have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
the
> time.
True to a certain extent, but some periods - say the dark ages in
Europe - have such an unknown language style that to attempt any
kind of novel in it or suggesting it must be well night impossible.
Plus formal language in public is fine - heroines are, in any case -
often queens and noble women, and so would speak formally in public
as a matter of course, regardless of period. But in bed with the
lover, do you really think that slipping into something more natural
would be wrong simply because it has modern overtones? I don't agree
with you on that one. Having read novels which aspire to reproduce
a semblance of "medieval speak" I have found that they have been
among the worst written, because they are too self-conscious and
deliberate, and real life simply isn't liek that. The art is not to
go too far the other way - like Rathbone.
> I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of
the
> fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous
that
> animated the world before science explained everything.
This is one I have been struggling with, and the jury is still out!
Brunhild
> I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst
us
> waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
> Aren't there?
>
> Marie
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-31 01:05:04
--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> > language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a
difficult
> > issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it
wouldn't
> be
> > understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> > that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain
thought
> > patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
contemporary
> > English without them running away with the thoughts to go with
it.
> > One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
> much
> > too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> > other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that
would
> > have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
> the
> > time.
>
> I agree entirely. One writer of 14th century mysteries has a
> character describing the scene of one set of murders as 'a grotty
> little convent'! I don't like gadzookery (wonderful word!) either
(I
> got impatient with 'We Speak No Treason' on that score), but it
ought
> to be perfectly possible to steer a middle course by using rather
> formal modern English with perhaps the odd archaic word, just to
give
> a flavour of a different age. And you are correct too about modern
> writers tending to forget the formalities of earlier ages - one
> obvious example is that upper class young ladies would be heavily
> chaperoned, so that any writer seeking to involve the heroine in a
> clinch with her beloved is going to have to get the chaperone out
of
> the way.
>
> Ann (currently struggling to write a Ricardian novel, in which,
inter
> alia, the hero meets with disaster because he forgets that the
> chaperone is hovering!)
In a similar vein, but another era, we have the Western novels and
movies which forget that the Old West in America took place in the
Victorian age. Much as I admire the movie "Shane" and the way the
story works on several levels, the frontier housewife would be about
as likely to wear (well-fitting) trousers as the new hired man,
Shane, would be likely to strip to the waist to work in her view,
which is about as likely as either person would be to prance around
naked in public.
Katy
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> > language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a
difficult
> > issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it
wouldn't
> be
> > understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> > that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain
thought
> > patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
contemporary
> > English without them running away with the thoughts to go with
it.
> > One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
> much
> > too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> > other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that
would
> > have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
> the
> > time.
>
> I agree entirely. One writer of 14th century mysteries has a
> character describing the scene of one set of murders as 'a grotty
> little convent'! I don't like gadzookery (wonderful word!) either
(I
> got impatient with 'We Speak No Treason' on that score), but it
ought
> to be perfectly possible to steer a middle course by using rather
> formal modern English with perhaps the odd archaic word, just to
give
> a flavour of a different age. And you are correct too about modern
> writers tending to forget the formalities of earlier ages - one
> obvious example is that upper class young ladies would be heavily
> chaperoned, so that any writer seeking to involve the heroine in a
> clinch with her beloved is going to have to get the chaperone out
of
> the way.
>
> Ann (currently struggling to write a Ricardian novel, in which,
inter
> alia, the hero meets with disaster because he forgets that the
> chaperone is hovering!)
In a similar vein, but another era, we have the Western novels and
movies which forget that the Old West in America took place in the
Victorian age. Much as I admire the movie "Shane" and the way the
story works on several levels, the frontier housewife would be about
as likely to wear (well-fitting) trousers as the new hired man,
Shane, would be likely to strip to the waist to work in her view,
which is about as likely as either person would be to prance around
naked in public.
Katy
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-31 17:34:43
>
> In a similar vein, but another era, we have the Western novels and
> movies which forget that the Old West in America took place in the
> Victorian age. Much as I admire the movie "Shane" and the way the
> story works on several levels, the frontier housewife would be
about
> as likely to wear (well-fitting) trousers as the new hired man,
> Shane, would be likely to strip to the waist to work in her view,
> which is about as likely as either person would be to prance
around
> naked in public.
>
LOL! Or in any medieval film pre 1980 they wore very tight fitting
dresses over strongly boned DD cup bras. Goodness, anyone would
think they had lycra!
> In a similar vein, but another era, we have the Western novels and
> movies which forget that the Old West in America took place in the
> Victorian age. Much as I admire the movie "Shane" and the way the
> story works on several levels, the frontier housewife would be
about
> as likely to wear (well-fitting) trousers as the new hired man,
> Shane, would be likely to strip to the waist to work in her view,
> which is about as likely as either person would be to prance
around
> naked in public.
>
LOL! Or in any medieval film pre 1980 they wore very tight fitting
dresses over strongly boned DD cup bras. Goodness, anyone would
think they had lycra!
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-31 18:02:13
>
> I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
> issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't
be
> understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
> patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
contemporary
> English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
> One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
much
> too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
> have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
the
> time.
> I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of
the
> fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous
that
> animated the world before science explained everything.
> I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst
us
> waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
> Aren't there?
>
> Marie
Marie I had a long think about this in bed last night, as you do,
and decided the only place to go is to Gregory of Tours. Now Gregory
(6thC Frankia) liked to report alleged conversations, supposedly
verbatim. Since he would not have been present at many of them they
would not have been verbatim, but that isn't the issue or why they
are relevant here. They are of interest because of the tone
and "modern" natire of many of them. Obviously he was writing in
latin, and the volume on my desk is translated, so this may make
minor differences to the terms, but only minor. For instance, he
records King Lothar saying "Well, would you believe it? What kind
of king can be in charge of heaven, if he is prepared to finish off
great monarchs like me in this fashion?" as he lay dying. Or Chanoa
count of Brittany told Chramn "Why don't you let me attack him
during the night? I could beat him and all his army too." Can't get
much more modern than these. King Chilperic, in hot water over his
treatment of bishops (again) says "A charge levelled against my wife
is a direct insult to me. If you consider that witnesses should be
called against the bishop, they are ready and waiting. If, however,
you decide that this is out of order and that we should accept the
Bishop's statement, then say so." In fact, the only "formal"
langauage was when Bishops were delivering holilies or treateis were
quoted. Another exampple, and I cannot quote word for word here, is
Henry II on his deathbed. When he finds only one (illegitimate) son
is at his bedsie, he makes a comment that it is sad, that the
legitimate sons are the real b*stards. Again that has a very modern
sound to it. So while I condemn such clear anachronism as
11thC "foxy chicks" I have no problem with a more modern style on
grounds of authenticity. It would appear they spoke in a manner very
similar to ourselves.
> I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a difficult
> issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it wouldn't
be
> understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain thought
> patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
contemporary
> English without them running away with the thoughts to go with it.
> One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
much
> too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that would
> have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
the
> time.
> I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of
the
> fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous
that
> animated the world before science explained everything.
> I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst
us
> waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
> Aren't there?
>
> Marie
Marie I had a long think about this in bed last night, as you do,
and decided the only place to go is to Gregory of Tours. Now Gregory
(6thC Frankia) liked to report alleged conversations, supposedly
verbatim. Since he would not have been present at many of them they
would not have been verbatim, but that isn't the issue or why they
are relevant here. They are of interest because of the tone
and "modern" natire of many of them. Obviously he was writing in
latin, and the volume on my desk is translated, so this may make
minor differences to the terms, but only minor. For instance, he
records King Lothar saying "Well, would you believe it? What kind
of king can be in charge of heaven, if he is prepared to finish off
great monarchs like me in this fashion?" as he lay dying. Or Chanoa
count of Brittany told Chramn "Why don't you let me attack him
during the night? I could beat him and all his army too." Can't get
much more modern than these. King Chilperic, in hot water over his
treatment of bishops (again) says "A charge levelled against my wife
is a direct insult to me. If you consider that witnesses should be
called against the bishop, they are ready and waiting. If, however,
you decide that this is out of order and that we should accept the
Bishop's statement, then say so." In fact, the only "formal"
langauage was when Bishops were delivering holilies or treateis were
quoted. Another exampple, and I cannot quote word for word here, is
Henry II on his deathbed. When he finds only one (illegitimate) son
is at his bedsie, he makes a comment that it is sad, that the
legitimate sons are the real b*stards. Again that has a very modern
sound to it. So while I condemn such clear anachronism as
11thC "foxy chicks" I have no problem with a more modern style on
grounds of authenticity. It would appear they spoke in a manner very
similar to ourselves.
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-31 21:30:16
--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> > language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a
difficult
> > issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it
wouldn't
> be
> > understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> > that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain
thought
> > patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
> contemporary
> > English without them running away with the thoughts to go with
it.
> > One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
> much
> > too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> > other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that
would
> > have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
> the
> > time.
> > I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of
> the
> > fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous
> that
> > animated the world before science explained everything.
> > I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst
> us
> > waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
> > Aren't there?
> >
> > Marie
>
> Marie I had a long think about this in bed last night, as you do,
> and decided the only place to go is to Gregory of Tours. Now
Gregory
> (6thC Frankia) liked to report alleged conversations, supposedly
> verbatim. Since he would not have been present at many of them they
> would not have been verbatim, but that isn't the issue or why they
> are relevant here. They are of interest because of the tone
> and "modern" natire of many of them. Obviously he was writing in
> latin, and the volume on my desk is translated, so this may make
> minor differences to the terms, but only minor. For instance, he
> records King Lothar saying "Well, would you believe it? What kind
> of king can be in charge of heaven, if he is prepared to finish off
> great monarchs like me in this fashion?" as he lay dying. Or
Chanoa
> count of Brittany told Chramn "Why don't you let me attack him
> during the night? I could beat him and all his army too." Can't get
> much more modern than these. King Chilperic, in hot water over his
> treatment of bishops (again) says "A charge levelled against my
wife
> is a direct insult to me. If you consider that witnesses should be
> called against the bishop, they are ready and waiting. If, however,
> you decide that this is out of order and that we should accept the
> Bishop's statement, then say so." In fact, the only "formal"
> langauage was when Bishops were delivering holilies or treateis
were
> quoted. Another exampple, and I cannot quote word for word here, is
> Henry II on his deathbed. When he finds only one (illegitimate) son
> is at his bedsie, he makes a comment that it is sad, that the
> legitimate sons are the real b*stards. Again that has a very modern
> sound to it. So while I condemn such clear anachronism as
> 11thC "foxy chicks" I have no problem with a more modern style on
> grounds of authenticity. It would appear they spoke in a manner
very
> similar to ourselves.
Well, I'm not totally convinced. Formality was only one example, and
I was talking about the upper classes in formal court settings, not
kings on their deathbeds surrounded by intimates. I don't think I
ever suggested that people always spoke formally in all settings
(such as when making love!). But it is perhaps precisely because the
King was the social superior (and dying?) that he could afford to
talk plainly. I bet if his subordinates addressed him in the same
tone it wouldn't go down half so well. Also, as you say, this is a
translation from the Latin into MODERN English. And much more formal
and indeed humble forms of address were used, for instance, by even
adult children to their parents, and this reflected social attitudes
regarding this relationship.
I realise there is little available in English from say temp. Henry
II (though there are some works), but where we have it we find the
language was, for one thing, much more terse and emphatic than modern
English, and again I think that reflects the mode of thought. To my
mind the flabbiness of the modern colloquial English used by some
historical writers jars with the intensity of life and belief in
former times. It is not always the sense of what is being said as it
could be translated into modern English that I'm talking about, but
the sheer rhythm and stress of the language. There is also a decision
to be made when using metaphors or similes - should one attempt to
avoid those that refer to things not known in the age one is writing
about, even when they are not in dialogue, because they interfere
with secondary belief, or to hell with it? Why not deliberately
substitute others drawn from the period of the novel to help so to
speak construct that world around the characters that makes the book
seem real? For me too few historical novels achieve that sense of
entering another place.
Also, some elements of formality in speech elude us now, as for
instance when Richard's letters in English use the words 'you'
and 'ye' he was using the polite form of the verb, like
French 'vous'. I've yet to read anything written in the period where
nob dialogue ever uses the familiar 'thee' and 'thou'; even Malory's
lovers use you. Granted, it was a different sort of formality from
Victorian polite speech. Words like bastard were still the normal
terms and not merely insults; good old Anglo-saxonisms were still
unashamedly everywhere and sex was talked about. Household servants
were still people one had a personal relationship with, not shadows
to scurry into the background when the master or mistress came along.
Outside of formal settings language was often extremely colourful.
Anyway, I suspect that one can't draw an exact parallel between the
courts of Henry II and Edward IV just because both were 'medieval'.
Edward had by all accounts gone to extreme lengths to make his court
as much like king Arthur's as possible, and splendour and extreme
ceremony were the new order of the day. And yet Edward could be very
informal with people when HE wanted to be.
And as much as anything else this is a plea for novels that show a
love not just of the period and the characters but of language
itself. For that reason I liked 'We Speak No Treason' because,
although the medievalisms were over the top and not always right, she
really did seem to be in love with words and to achieve a sense of
nother time when reality was not seen as clinically as we see it now.
My problem was that she hadn't got her love for words under control
and also some of her metaphors became very hackneyed - nothing could
be red, for instance, without being ruby! -; this made her later
books a yawn for me (with the exception of Crown in Candlelight,
where she did seem to find a more balanced style).
I know there's a problem with, say, the Dark Ages, but there must be
some clues, some way of steering a middle ground between Walter Scott
and the language of, eg, the early 21st century business pseud (who
wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Dark Ages). I'm not making a
plea for lots of overwritten gadzookery (yes I like that word too).
My fav. historical novel read recently (ie one I actually finished)
was The True History of the Kelly Gang, which has to rely on
convincing the reader that these are the genuine semi-literate
letters of the outlaw Ned Kelly. Obviously that too has to be a
compromise, but it's a clever enough one to do the job.
Now, I know what I'm talking about is difficult. I've tried it and I
think I'm rubbish at it. But it's what I like to read.
Marie
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm also slightly bothered by the current line of thinking that
> > language has to be strictly up-to-date. Obviously it's a
difficult
> > issue and real late Middle English is not a starter as it
wouldn't
> be
> > understood, nor of course is 'gadzookery'. However, my feeling is
> > that forms of language in themselves reflect and constrain
thought
> > patterns and it's very hard have characters using very
> contemporary
> > English without them running away with the thoughts to go with
it.
> > One noticeable effect is that the upper class characters become
> much
> > too informal and egalitarian in the way they interact with each
> > other, and the next thing you know they're doing things that
would
> > have been totally impossible given the real social constraints of
> the
> > time.
> > I also think that a lot of the novels (those that steer clear of
> the
> > fantasy genre, at least)lack that undercurrent of the numinous
> that
> > animated the world before science explained everything.
> > I suspect there are a lot disgruntled would-be novelists amongst
> us
> > waiting for time to write in anything longer than internet posts.
> > Aren't there?
> >
> > Marie
>
> Marie I had a long think about this in bed last night, as you do,
> and decided the only place to go is to Gregory of Tours. Now
Gregory
> (6thC Frankia) liked to report alleged conversations, supposedly
> verbatim. Since he would not have been present at many of them they
> would not have been verbatim, but that isn't the issue or why they
> are relevant here. They are of interest because of the tone
> and "modern" natire of many of them. Obviously he was writing in
> latin, and the volume on my desk is translated, so this may make
> minor differences to the terms, but only minor. For instance, he
> records King Lothar saying "Well, would you believe it? What kind
> of king can be in charge of heaven, if he is prepared to finish off
> great monarchs like me in this fashion?" as he lay dying. Or
Chanoa
> count of Brittany told Chramn "Why don't you let me attack him
> during the night? I could beat him and all his army too." Can't get
> much more modern than these. King Chilperic, in hot water over his
> treatment of bishops (again) says "A charge levelled against my
wife
> is a direct insult to me. If you consider that witnesses should be
> called against the bishop, they are ready and waiting. If, however,
> you decide that this is out of order and that we should accept the
> Bishop's statement, then say so." In fact, the only "formal"
> langauage was when Bishops were delivering holilies or treateis
were
> quoted. Another exampple, and I cannot quote word for word here, is
> Henry II on his deathbed. When he finds only one (illegitimate) son
> is at his bedsie, he makes a comment that it is sad, that the
> legitimate sons are the real b*stards. Again that has a very modern
> sound to it. So while I condemn such clear anachronism as
> 11thC "foxy chicks" I have no problem with a more modern style on
> grounds of authenticity. It would appear they spoke in a manner
very
> similar to ourselves.
Well, I'm not totally convinced. Formality was only one example, and
I was talking about the upper classes in formal court settings, not
kings on their deathbeds surrounded by intimates. I don't think I
ever suggested that people always spoke formally in all settings
(such as when making love!). But it is perhaps precisely because the
King was the social superior (and dying?) that he could afford to
talk plainly. I bet if his subordinates addressed him in the same
tone it wouldn't go down half so well. Also, as you say, this is a
translation from the Latin into MODERN English. And much more formal
and indeed humble forms of address were used, for instance, by even
adult children to their parents, and this reflected social attitudes
regarding this relationship.
I realise there is little available in English from say temp. Henry
II (though there are some works), but where we have it we find the
language was, for one thing, much more terse and emphatic than modern
English, and again I think that reflects the mode of thought. To my
mind the flabbiness of the modern colloquial English used by some
historical writers jars with the intensity of life and belief in
former times. It is not always the sense of what is being said as it
could be translated into modern English that I'm talking about, but
the sheer rhythm and stress of the language. There is also a decision
to be made when using metaphors or similes - should one attempt to
avoid those that refer to things not known in the age one is writing
about, even when they are not in dialogue, because they interfere
with secondary belief, or to hell with it? Why not deliberately
substitute others drawn from the period of the novel to help so to
speak construct that world around the characters that makes the book
seem real? For me too few historical novels achieve that sense of
entering another place.
Also, some elements of formality in speech elude us now, as for
instance when Richard's letters in English use the words 'you'
and 'ye' he was using the polite form of the verb, like
French 'vous'. I've yet to read anything written in the period where
nob dialogue ever uses the familiar 'thee' and 'thou'; even Malory's
lovers use you. Granted, it was a different sort of formality from
Victorian polite speech. Words like bastard were still the normal
terms and not merely insults; good old Anglo-saxonisms were still
unashamedly everywhere and sex was talked about. Household servants
were still people one had a personal relationship with, not shadows
to scurry into the background when the master or mistress came along.
Outside of formal settings language was often extremely colourful.
Anyway, I suspect that one can't draw an exact parallel between the
courts of Henry II and Edward IV just because both were 'medieval'.
Edward had by all accounts gone to extreme lengths to make his court
as much like king Arthur's as possible, and splendour and extreme
ceremony were the new order of the day. And yet Edward could be very
informal with people when HE wanted to be.
And as much as anything else this is a plea for novels that show a
love not just of the period and the characters but of language
itself. For that reason I liked 'We Speak No Treason' because,
although the medievalisms were over the top and not always right, she
really did seem to be in love with words and to achieve a sense of
nother time when reality was not seen as clinically as we see it now.
My problem was that she hadn't got her love for words under control
and also some of her metaphors became very hackneyed - nothing could
be red, for instance, without being ruby! -; this made her later
books a yawn for me (with the exception of Crown in Candlelight,
where she did seem to find a more balanced style).
I know there's a problem with, say, the Dark Ages, but there must be
some clues, some way of steering a middle ground between Walter Scott
and the language of, eg, the early 21st century business pseud (who
wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Dark Ages). I'm not making a
plea for lots of overwritten gadzookery (yes I like that word too).
My fav. historical novel read recently (ie one I actually finished)
was The True History of the Kelly Gang, which has to rely on
convincing the reader that these are the genuine semi-literate
letters of the outlaw Ned Kelly. Obviously that too has to be a
compromise, but it's a clever enough one to do the job.
Now, I know what I'm talking about is difficult. I've tried it and I
think I'm rubbish at it. But it's what I like to read.
Marie
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-07-31 21:42:59
For that reason I liked 'We Speak No Treason' because,
> although the medievalisms were over the top and not always right,
she
> really did seem to be in love with words and to achieve a sense of
> nother time when reality was not seen as clinically as we see it
now.
It is so long since I read it that I can't recall how it was written
and whether it worked. I know I have read those which fail. I did
read one about Vikings two years ago written very well in the style
of a Norse saga, though I did find it wearing after a few hundred
pages. I am sure there was one which succeeded, I just can't
remember what it was.
> I know there's a problem with, say, the Dark Ages, but there must
be
> some clues, some way of steering a middle ground between Walter
Scott
> and the language of, eg, the early 21st century business pseud
(who
> wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Dark Ages). I'm not making
a
> plea for lots of overwritten gadzookery (yes I like that word
too).
> My fav. historical novel read recently (ie one I actually
finished)
> was The True History of the Kelly Gang, which has to rely on
> convincing the reader that these are the genuine semi-literate
> letters of the outlaw Ned Kelly. Obviously that too has to be a
> compromise, but it's a clever enough one to do the job.
>
> Now, I know what I'm talking about is difficult. I've tried it and
I
> think I'm rubbish at it. But it's what I like to read.
>
> Marie
Hey if anyone can do it well more power to their pen. But equally we
shouldn't disallow modern style simply because it's nmodern. We
should, however, as you say, avoid inserting our values into their
minds.
Brunhild
> although the medievalisms were over the top and not always right,
she
> really did seem to be in love with words and to achieve a sense of
> nother time when reality was not seen as clinically as we see it
now.
It is so long since I read it that I can't recall how it was written
and whether it worked. I know I have read those which fail. I did
read one about Vikings two years ago written very well in the style
of a Norse saga, though I did find it wearing after a few hundred
pages. I am sure there was one which succeeded, I just can't
remember what it was.
> I know there's a problem with, say, the Dark Ages, but there must
be
> some clues, some way of steering a middle ground between Walter
Scott
> and the language of, eg, the early 21st century business pseud
(who
> wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Dark Ages). I'm not making
a
> plea for lots of overwritten gadzookery (yes I like that word
too).
> My fav. historical novel read recently (ie one I actually
finished)
> was The True History of the Kelly Gang, which has to rely on
> convincing the reader that these are the genuine semi-literate
> letters of the outlaw Ned Kelly. Obviously that too has to be a
> compromise, but it's a clever enough one to do the job.
>
> Now, I know what I'm talking about is difficult. I've tried it and
I
> think I'm rubbish at it. But it's what I like to read.
>
> Marie
Hey if anyone can do it well more power to their pen. But equally we
shouldn't disallow modern style simply because it's nmodern. We
should, however, as you say, avoid inserting our values into their
minds.
Brunhild
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-01 02:21:20
> and whether it worked. I know I have read those which fail. I did
> read one about Vikings two years ago written very well in the style
> of a Norse saga, though I did find it wearing after a few hundred
> pages. I am sure there was one which succeeded, I just can't
> remember what it was.
Was that book The Greenlanders by Jane Smiley, about the Viking
settlement in Greenland?
If it was I thought it was a brilliant book but also not that easy to
read.
I have to say that I have read, or attempted to read, many Ricardian
novels and some are truely awful.
One recent one I saw about Margaret Beaufort had her glistening with
tears as she watched her son Henry become king, "the image of her one
true love Edmund Tudor"
Then another novel supposedly about Anne Neville the author made Anne
frigid!
I could go on more about some but I won't.
I did like the books by Penman, Hawley Jarman and Rhoda Edwards even
if sometimes the language could be overwrought, especially the love
scenes. Then a writing teacher once told me that love scenes can be
the most difficult to write well, even for the best writers.
Helen
> read one about Vikings two years ago written very well in the style
> of a Norse saga, though I did find it wearing after a few hundred
> pages. I am sure there was one which succeeded, I just can't
> remember what it was.
Was that book The Greenlanders by Jane Smiley, about the Viking
settlement in Greenland?
If it was I thought it was a brilliant book but also not that easy to
read.
I have to say that I have read, or attempted to read, many Ricardian
novels and some are truely awful.
One recent one I saw about Margaret Beaufort had her glistening with
tears as she watched her son Henry become king, "the image of her one
true love Edmund Tudor"
Then another novel supposedly about Anne Neville the author made Anne
frigid!
I could go on more about some but I won't.
I did like the books by Penman, Hawley Jarman and Rhoda Edwards even
if sometimes the language could be overwrought, especially the love
scenes. Then a writing teacher once told me that love scenes can be
the most difficult to write well, even for the best writers.
Helen
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-01 02:51:09
--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> For that reason I liked 'We Speak No Treason' because,
> > although the medievalisms were over the top and not always right,
> she
> > really did seem to be in love with words and to achieve a sense
of
> > nother time when reality was not seen as clinically as we see it
> now.
>
> It is so long since I read it that I can't recall how it was
written
> and whether it worked. I know I have read those which fail. I did
> read one about Vikings two years ago written very well in the style
> of a Norse saga, though I did find it wearing after a few hundred
> pages. I am sure there was one which succeeded, I just can't
> remember what it was.
>
> > I know there's a problem with, say, the Dark Ages, but there must
> be
> > some clues, some way of steering a middle ground between Walter
> Scott
> > and the language of, eg, the early 21st century business pseud
> (who
> > wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Dark Ages). I'm not making
> a
> > plea for lots of overwritten gadzookery (yes I like that word
> too).
> > My fav. historical novel read recently (ie one I actually
> finished)
> > was The True History of the Kelly Gang, which has to rely on
> > convincing the reader that these are the genuine semi-literate
> > letters of the outlaw Ned Kelly. Obviously that too has to be a
> > compromise, but it's a clever enough one to do the job.
> >
> > Now, I know what I'm talking about is difficult. I've tried it
and
> I
> > think I'm rubbish at it. But it's what I like to read.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Hey if anyone can do it well more power to their pen. But equally
we
> shouldn't disallow modern style simply because it's nmodern. We
> should, however, as you say, avoid inserting our values into their
> minds.
> Brunhild
The first novel by Edith Pargeter I read was "A Bloody Field By
Shrewsbury"...I couldn't wait for Hotspur to get killed and looked
forward to it, because I couldna stand one more minute a' his manner
a' speakin'.
Katy
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> For that reason I liked 'We Speak No Treason' because,
> > although the medievalisms were over the top and not always right,
> she
> > really did seem to be in love with words and to achieve a sense
of
> > nother time when reality was not seen as clinically as we see it
> now.
>
> It is so long since I read it that I can't recall how it was
written
> and whether it worked. I know I have read those which fail. I did
> read one about Vikings two years ago written very well in the style
> of a Norse saga, though I did find it wearing after a few hundred
> pages. I am sure there was one which succeeded, I just can't
> remember what it was.
>
> > I know there's a problem with, say, the Dark Ages, but there must
> be
> > some clues, some way of steering a middle ground between Walter
> Scott
> > and the language of, eg, the early 21st century business pseud
> (who
> > wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the Dark Ages). I'm not making
> a
> > plea for lots of overwritten gadzookery (yes I like that word
> too).
> > My fav. historical novel read recently (ie one I actually
> finished)
> > was The True History of the Kelly Gang, which has to rely on
> > convincing the reader that these are the genuine semi-literate
> > letters of the outlaw Ned Kelly. Obviously that too has to be a
> > compromise, but it's a clever enough one to do the job.
> >
> > Now, I know what I'm talking about is difficult. I've tried it
and
> I
> > think I'm rubbish at it. But it's what I like to read.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Hey if anyone can do it well more power to their pen. But equally
we
> shouldn't disallow modern style simply because it's nmodern. We
> should, however, as you say, avoid inserting our values into their
> minds.
> Brunhild
The first novel by Edith Pargeter I read was "A Bloody Field By
Shrewsbury"...I couldn't wait for Hotspur to get killed and looked
forward to it, because I couldna stand one more minute a' his manner
a' speakin'.
Katy
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-01 09:49:44
>
> The first novel by Edith Pargeter I read was "A Bloody Field By
> Shrewsbury"...I couldn't wait for Hotspur to get killed and looked
> forward to it, because I couldna stand one more minute a' his
manner
> a' speakin'.
>
This neatly raises the point that dialect is also very difficult to
write without becoming profoundly irritating. (In fact, Pargeter
doesn't represent Northumbrian speech terribly well - a Northumbrian
could NAE stand.) This is an extra problem in writing a medieval
novel because differences in speech between different areas were much
greater than they are today. If you are trying to get really in
period you need to give at least a flavour of this, by having your
northerners unable to comprehend the speech of visiting Londoners,
and so on. My technique, for what it's worth, in writing dialogue for
my hero (born in Northumberland, trained as a knight in Warwick's
household at Middleham) is to put in the odd 'typical' bit of
Northumbrian usage, so, when he first meets the young Duke of
Gloucester and is asked his name, he replies, 'They caall us Tom.'
One author who manages to solve this problem triumphantly is Thomas
Kenneally in his book 'Confederates', where his hick Virginian
soldiers really 'sound' right.
Ann
> The first novel by Edith Pargeter I read was "A Bloody Field By
> Shrewsbury"...I couldn't wait for Hotspur to get killed and looked
> forward to it, because I couldna stand one more minute a' his
manner
> a' speakin'.
>
This neatly raises the point that dialect is also very difficult to
write without becoming profoundly irritating. (In fact, Pargeter
doesn't represent Northumbrian speech terribly well - a Northumbrian
could NAE stand.) This is an extra problem in writing a medieval
novel because differences in speech between different areas were much
greater than they are today. If you are trying to get really in
period you need to give at least a flavour of this, by having your
northerners unable to comprehend the speech of visiting Londoners,
and so on. My technique, for what it's worth, in writing dialogue for
my hero (born in Northumberland, trained as a knight in Warwick's
household at Middleham) is to put in the odd 'typical' bit of
Northumbrian usage, so, when he first meets the young Duke of
Gloucester and is asked his name, he replies, 'They caall us Tom.'
One author who manages to solve this problem triumphantly is Thomas
Kenneally in his book 'Confederates', where his hick Virginian
soldiers really 'sound' right.
Ann
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-01 12:20:23
--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > The first novel by Edith Pargeter I read was "A Bloody Field By
> > Shrewsbury"...I couldn't wait for Hotspur to get killed and
looked
> > forward to it, because I couldna stand one more minute a' his
> manner
> > a' speakin'.
> >
> This neatly raises the point that dialect is also very difficult
to
> write without becoming profoundly irritating. (In fact, Pargeter
> doesn't represent Northumbrian speech terribly well - a
Northumbrian
> could NAE stand.) This is an extra problem in writing a medieval
> novel because differences in speech between different areas were
much
> greater than they are today. If you are trying to get really in
> period you need to give at least a flavour of this, by having your
> northerners unable to comprehend the speech of visiting Londoners,
> and so on. My technique, for what it's worth, in writing dialogue
for
> my hero (born in Northumberland, trained as a knight in Warwick's
> household at Middleham) is to put in the odd 'typical' bit of
> Northumbrian usage, so, when he first meets the young Duke of
> Gloucester and is asked his name, he replies, 'They caall us Tom.'
>
> One author who manages to solve this problem triumphantly is
Thomas
> Kenneally in his book 'Confederates', where his hick Virginian
> soldiers really 'sound' right.
>
> Ann
Is this a book you have had published, Ann, or still in production?
If published may I ask what it's called? I am always on the lookout
for 15thC novels.
On a different - and probably contentious issue - for me the most
heinous crime of the historical novelist lies not in conversaton but
in altering the facts. If a series of evenst occured they should not
be rearranged to suit a novelist. If the writer cannot construct a
plot around known facts in the order in which they occurred then
they shouldn't be writing a novel at all. I have no problem with
making small additions to an event to suit the plot regarding the
hero/heroine etc, or even inserting a fictional hero into a true
event - one simply couldn't write a novel without doing this. But to
alter the sequence itself is a hanging offence! ;-)
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > The first novel by Edith Pargeter I read was "A Bloody Field By
> > Shrewsbury"...I couldn't wait for Hotspur to get killed and
looked
> > forward to it, because I couldna stand one more minute a' his
> manner
> > a' speakin'.
> >
> This neatly raises the point that dialect is also very difficult
to
> write without becoming profoundly irritating. (In fact, Pargeter
> doesn't represent Northumbrian speech terribly well - a
Northumbrian
> could NAE stand.) This is an extra problem in writing a medieval
> novel because differences in speech between different areas were
much
> greater than they are today. If you are trying to get really in
> period you need to give at least a flavour of this, by having your
> northerners unable to comprehend the speech of visiting Londoners,
> and so on. My technique, for what it's worth, in writing dialogue
for
> my hero (born in Northumberland, trained as a knight in Warwick's
> household at Middleham) is to put in the odd 'typical' bit of
> Northumbrian usage, so, when he first meets the young Duke of
> Gloucester and is asked his name, he replies, 'They caall us Tom.'
>
> One author who manages to solve this problem triumphantly is
Thomas
> Kenneally in his book 'Confederates', where his hick Virginian
> soldiers really 'sound' right.
>
> Ann
Is this a book you have had published, Ann, or still in production?
If published may I ask what it's called? I am always on the lookout
for 15thC novels.
On a different - and probably contentious issue - for me the most
heinous crime of the historical novelist lies not in conversaton but
in altering the facts. If a series of evenst occured they should not
be rearranged to suit a novelist. If the writer cannot construct a
plot around known facts in the order in which they occurred then
they shouldn't be writing a novel at all. I have no problem with
making small additions to an event to suit the plot regarding the
hero/heroine etc, or even inserting a fictional hero into a true
event - one simply couldn't write a novel without doing this. But to
alter the sequence itself is a hanging offence! ;-)
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-01 14:51:41
> Is this a book you have had published, Ann, or still in production?
> If published may I ask what it's called? I am always on the lookout
> for 15thC novels.
>
> On a different - and probably contentious issue - for me the most
> heinous crime of the historical novelist lies not in conversaton
but
> in altering the facts. If a series of evenst occured they should
not
> be rearranged to suit a novelist. If the writer cannot construct a
> plot around known facts in the order in which they occurred then
> they shouldn't be writing a novel at all. I have no problem with
> making small additions to an event to suit the plot regarding the
> hero/heroine etc, or even inserting a fictional hero into a true
> event - one simply couldn't write a novel without doing this. But
to
> alter the sequence itself is a hanging offence! ;-)
I'm still working on it - September 1470 at the moment, with young
Tom (fictitious bastard son of Warwick) having broken irretrievably
with Warwick over the alliance with Margaret of Anjou and seeking a
place as a squire under his boyhood friend Richard of Gloucester.
I have to admit to some 'adjustments' of fact. Nothing out of
sequence, but I've got Warwick himself in command at Edgcote in order
to give Tom (a real hothead!) the chance to take part in his first
battle. But I am going to explain things in the historical note.
Ann
> If published may I ask what it's called? I am always on the lookout
> for 15thC novels.
>
> On a different - and probably contentious issue - for me the most
> heinous crime of the historical novelist lies not in conversaton
but
> in altering the facts. If a series of evenst occured they should
not
> be rearranged to suit a novelist. If the writer cannot construct a
> plot around known facts in the order in which they occurred then
> they shouldn't be writing a novel at all. I have no problem with
> making small additions to an event to suit the plot regarding the
> hero/heroine etc, or even inserting a fictional hero into a true
> event - one simply couldn't write a novel without doing this. But
to
> alter the sequence itself is a hanging offence! ;-)
I'm still working on it - September 1470 at the moment, with young
Tom (fictitious bastard son of Warwick) having broken irretrievably
with Warwick over the alliance with Margaret of Anjou and seeking a
place as a squire under his boyhood friend Richard of Gloucester.
I have to admit to some 'adjustments' of fact. Nothing out of
sequence, but I've got Warwick himself in command at Edgcote in order
to give Tom (a real hothead!) the chance to take part in his first
battle. But I am going to explain things in the historical note.
Ann
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-01 19:02:39
>
>
> I'm still working on it - September 1470 at the moment, with young
> Tom (fictitious bastard son of Warwick) having broken
irretrievably
> with Warwick over the alliance with Margaret of Anjou and seeking
a
> place as a squire under his boyhood friend Richard of Gloucester.
>
> I have to admit to some 'adjustments' of fact. Nothing out of
> sequence, but I've got Warwick himself in command at Edgcote in
order
> to give Tom (a real hothead!) the chance to take part in his first
> battle. But I am going to explain things in the historical note.
>
> Ann
Ann, I have a friend who is currently a librarian. She tells me no-
one is taking out historicals. :-( The publishers are saying no call
for them. Funn that I stumble upon books that should never have got
past the front door of any self-respecting agent which have been
publsihed. It seems, nevertheless, to be difficult to break in. I
wish you luck with it. Have you approached anyone or is it too early?
>
> I'm still working on it - September 1470 at the moment, with young
> Tom (fictitious bastard son of Warwick) having broken
irretrievably
> with Warwick over the alliance with Margaret of Anjou and seeking
a
> place as a squire under his boyhood friend Richard of Gloucester.
>
> I have to admit to some 'adjustments' of fact. Nothing out of
> sequence, but I've got Warwick himself in command at Edgcote in
order
> to give Tom (a real hothead!) the chance to take part in his first
> battle. But I am going to explain things in the historical note.
>
> Ann
Ann, I have a friend who is currently a librarian. She tells me no-
one is taking out historicals. :-( The publishers are saying no call
for them. Funn that I stumble upon books that should never have got
past the front door of any self-respecting agent which have been
publsihed. It seems, nevertheless, to be difficult to break in. I
wish you luck with it. Have you approached anyone or is it too early?
Re: Ricardian Novels - Ann
2003-08-02 00:21:28
--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
I have a friend who is currently a librarian. She tells me no-
> one is taking out historicals. :-( The publishers are saying no
call
> for them. Funn that I stumble upon books that should never have got
> past the front door of any self-respecting agent which have been
> publsihed. It seems, nevertheless, to be difficult to break in. I
> wish you luck with it. Have you approached anyone or is it too
early?
It is hard to get historical novels published per se. This may be
why there is a thriving market for historical mysteries, or
fantasies, or whatever! Writers are sneaking them in under the cover
of other genres.
For my personal experience, I have been writing and pursuing
publication since I was 18. I finally got an agent and thereafter a
publisher in 2001, when I was 41. This is not a typical experience,
but it is undoubtedly not easy to "break in". However, despite what
Brunhild says, agents vet manuscripts very carefully.
The best way is to secure an agent if possible as very few publishers
these days read unsolicited manuscripts.
Jessica
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
I have a friend who is currently a librarian. She tells me no-
> one is taking out historicals. :-( The publishers are saying no
call
> for them. Funn that I stumble upon books that should never have got
> past the front door of any self-respecting agent which have been
> publsihed. It seems, nevertheless, to be difficult to break in. I
> wish you luck with it. Have you approached anyone or is it too
early?
It is hard to get historical novels published per se. This may be
why there is a thriving market for historical mysteries, or
fantasies, or whatever! Writers are sneaking them in under the cover
of other genres.
For my personal experience, I have been writing and pursuing
publication since I was 18. I finally got an agent and thereafter a
publisher in 2001, when I was 41. This is not a typical experience,
but it is undoubtedly not easy to "break in". However, despite what
Brunhild says, agents vet manuscripts very carefully.
The best way is to secure an agent if possible as very few publishers
these days read unsolicited manuscripts.
Jessica
Re: Ricardian Novels - Ann
2003-08-02 16:14:53
Thanks for the advice and encouragement. I do have an agent who is
vaguely interested, but have been advised to finish writing the
thing before I submit it.
One thing I'm discovering is that historical novelists do have a
nasty habit of skipping over the difficult bits of recorded history,
so that Penman, for example, has Edward IV being taken into
Warwick's custody, but glosses over his emergence from it, or
asking obvious questions like 'What did Warwick's household knights
think of his alliance with Margaret of Anjou?'
Ann
> It is hard to get historical novels published per se. This may be
> why there is a thriving market for historical mysteries, or
> fantasies, or whatever! Writers are sneaking them in under the
cover
> of other genres.
>
> For my personal experience, I have been writing and pursuing
> publication since I was 18. I finally got an agent and thereafter
a
> publisher in 2001, when I was 41. This is not a typical
experience,
> but it is undoubtedly not easy to "break in". However, despite
what
> Brunhild says, agents vet manuscripts very carefully.
>
> The best way is to secure an agent if possible as very few
publishers
> these days read unsolicited manuscripts.
>
> Jessica
vaguely interested, but have been advised to finish writing the
thing before I submit it.
One thing I'm discovering is that historical novelists do have a
nasty habit of skipping over the difficult bits of recorded history,
so that Penman, for example, has Edward IV being taken into
Warwick's custody, but glosses over his emergence from it, or
asking obvious questions like 'What did Warwick's household knights
think of his alliance with Margaret of Anjou?'
Ann
> It is hard to get historical novels published per se. This may be
> why there is a thriving market for historical mysteries, or
> fantasies, or whatever! Writers are sneaking them in under the
cover
> of other genres.
>
> For my personal experience, I have been writing and pursuing
> publication since I was 18. I finally got an agent and thereafter
a
> publisher in 2001, when I was 41. This is not a typical
experience,
> but it is undoubtedly not easy to "break in". However, despite
what
> Brunhild says, agents vet manuscripts very carefully.
>
> The best way is to secure an agent if possible as very few
publishers
> these days read unsolicited manuscripts.
>
> Jessica
Re: Ricardian Novels - Ann
2003-08-02 19:06:57
>
> For my personal experience, I have been writing and pursuing
> publication since I was 18. I finally got an agent and thereafter
a
> publisher in 2001, when I was 41. This is not a typical
experience,
> but it is undoubtedly not easy to "break in". However, despite
what
> Brunhild says, agents vet manuscripts very carefully.
I am sure they do. I wonder is it coincidence that the very worst
have been American? ;-) Mind you, I do wonder about Julian Rathbone
and that appalling female writer responsible for the ghost thing...
>
> The best way is to secure an agent if possible as very few
publishers
> these days read unsolicited manuscripts.
>
> Jessica
So I believe. They do seem a little timid though - they will try
familiar periods - Roman, Ricardian, Henrician - but seem to be
rather cautious with less well known periods.
> For my personal experience, I have been writing and pursuing
> publication since I was 18. I finally got an agent and thereafter
a
> publisher in 2001, when I was 41. This is not a typical
experience,
> but it is undoubtedly not easy to "break in". However, despite
what
> Brunhild says, agents vet manuscripts very carefully.
I am sure they do. I wonder is it coincidence that the very worst
have been American? ;-) Mind you, I do wonder about Julian Rathbone
and that appalling female writer responsible for the ghost thing...
>
> The best way is to secure an agent if possible as very few
publishers
> these days read unsolicited manuscripts.
>
> Jessica
So I believe. They do seem a little timid though - they will try
familiar periods - Roman, Ricardian, Henrician - but seem to be
rather cautious with less well known periods.
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-03 20:13:04
Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest of
the forum???
continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest of
the forum???
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-04 09:21:43
--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest
of
> the forum???
Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
interested.
Ann
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest
of
> the forum???
Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
interested.
Ann
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-04 14:13:29
--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> > continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest
> of
> > the forum???
>
> Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
> interested.
>
> Ann
Absolutely. I did have a novel about Richard's sister Anne ongoing
some years ago. I always seemd to get bogged down but I felt on the
verge of getting there with it - ie producing the book I'd had in my
imagination at the start. And then I got ME again. I had an agent
interested, but I've been at that point twice now but failed to get
published.
I'll keep that book for revival, but I think when I get my life back
properly I'll start what I've always wanted to do but put off till I
thought I'd served my apprenticeship - a novel about Richard. He's
definitely more saleable than my other 15th century characters as far
as publishers are concerned, anyway.
In the meantime I'd love advice from anyone who's made it.
Marie
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> > continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest
> of
> > the forum???
>
> Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
> interested.
>
> Ann
Absolutely. I did have a novel about Richard's sister Anne ongoing
some years ago. I always seemd to get bogged down but I felt on the
verge of getting there with it - ie producing the book I'd had in my
imagination at the start. And then I got ME again. I had an agent
interested, but I've been at that point twice now but failed to get
published.
I'll keep that book for revival, but I think when I get my life back
properly I'll start what I've always wanted to do but put off till I
thought I'd served my apprenticeship - a novel about Richard. He's
definitely more saleable than my other 15th century characters as far
as publishers are concerned, anyway.
In the meantime I'd love advice from anyone who's made it.
Marie
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-04 14:33:39
--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> > continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest
> of
> > the forum???
>
> Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
> interested.
>
> Ann
I'm interested!
Katy
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> > continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the rest
> of
> > the forum???
>
> Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
> interested.
>
> Ann
I'm interested!
Katy
Re: Ricardian Novels
2003-08-05 09:24:09
--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > > Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> > > continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the
rest
> > of
> > > the forum???
> >
> > Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
> > interested.
> >
> > Ann
>
> I'm interested!
>
> Katy
Fairynuff! I have written one too - like everyone here it seems! -
but about - you guessed it - Brunhild and Fredegund. I have been
stuck on the last chapter (33) for some time since almost everyone
on the "heroine's" side are wiped out, which makes it pretty
difficult to write, a scenario someone referred to elsewhere. I know
it's competent, and friends who have read it have liked it, but
where to go from here....! The big problem is people are reluctant
to try the new period.
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , aelyon2001
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > > Ann - would you be willing to email me (see members list) to
> > > continue discussing publishing without being tiresome to the
rest
> > of
> > > the forum???
> >
> > Certainly, though it sounds as though there are others also
> > interested.
> >
> > Ann
>
> I'm interested!
>
> Katy
Fairynuff! I have written one too - like everyone here it seems! -
but about - you guessed it - Brunhild and Fredegund. I have been
stuck on the last chapter (33) for some time since almost everyone
on the "heroine's" side are wiped out, which makes it pretty
difficult to write, a scenario someone referred to elsewhere. I know
it's competent, and friends who have read it have liked it, but
where to go from here....! The big problem is people are reluctant
to try the new period.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.