Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Ricardian Novels

Marie wrote: I ... 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?

Hi Marie!

I just wanted to agree with what you had written about anachronisms in
modern historical novels. One reason that I have continued to like "We
Speak no Treason", despite its melodramatic qualities, is that Rosemary
Hawley Jarman did seem to capture the "otherness" of 15th century England in
a way that many other historical novelists of the period have failed to do.

In "The Sunne in Splendour", Sharon Penman clearly attempted a form of
medievalistic dialogue, though I found her forms of speech generally
irritating and distracting.

However, if people are irritated by the various attempts perpetrated by
writers to depict Richard and his times, I would challenge them to try. For
one thing, I feel strongly that writing is, in the words of Terry Pratchett,
the most pleasure one can have on one's own! Also people on this list must
have a depth of knowledge of the subject that most novelists can only pine
for.

But I do feel rather like a Devil's Advocate on this issue. As a writer -
not a literary one, but a writer of genre fiction - I wonder whether readers
appreciate just how challenging it is to write a book, especially an
historical novel in which there are quite formidable constraints as to
accuracy!

In my view, few or none of the writers who have chosen Richard as their
subject are of the necessary calibre. To me, the best historical novels are
written by writers of high literary cachet - by way of example, I would
mention Umberto Eco "The Name of the Rose" and Thomas Keneally "Blood red
sister rose" - the former as you probably well know ostensibly a murder
mystery in an Italian monastery, the latter a life of Joan of Arc.

But in the last analysis, a novel is never the same as a piece of historical
research. The writer has to make decisions about the voice, speech and
characters of the people depicted. They also need to cater to a wider
audience than that represented by the well-informed and critical members of
this board, who probably know more about the subject than anyone else,
excepting professional historians!

Jessica

> 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!
>
Oh Brunhild! I hadn't better recommend "Kings of Albion", also by
Rathbone...but the anachronisms there are entirely deliberate. He seems to
imply quite cheerfully that the upper classes went in for a spot of b*ggery
on the side (including Edward IV), has them speaking like stereotypical
upper-class twits, and in one episode manages to refer to a scene from "The
Shining".

Jessica

---
> But I do feel rather like a Devil's Advocate on this issue. As a
writer -
> not a literary one, but a writer of genre fiction - I wonder
whether readers
> appreciate just how challenging it is to write a book, especially an
> historical novel in which there are quite formidable constraints as
to
> accuracy!
>
> > Jessica

And research as you might, you'll always miss something, and some
eader will helpfully tell you about it. I always enjoy the endnotes
in George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman novels as much as the novels
themselves. His framework is that he is merely the editor and
presenter of the memoirs of Harry Flashman, an 19th century rogue and
characte in "Tom Brown's Schooldays" who was somehow involved in most
of the historical events of his time, which he found in an old trunk
or somesuch. (It's as handy an approach as having Sherlock Holmes'
adventures presented by Watson...all the impossibilities of the plots
can be attributed to Watson's misremembering or misunderstanding or
not having been fully informed.) Anyway, in the endnotes Fraser
mentions that a reader has pointed out that, say, in his account of
the Boer War Flashman says he saw the Countess of Warwick at the
opera at a date which was five months after her death, or that
Flashman frequently claims to have sung songs before they were
written....

I can sympathize. I once had a character sing "Danny Boy" in 1893,
only to learn later that the lyrics were not written till 1913, as
the result of a contest to put words to the old tune "Londonderry
Air."

Katy

> I can sympathize. I once had a character sing "Danny Boy" in 1893,
> only to learn later that the lyrics were not written till 1913, as
> the result of a contest to put words to the old tune "Londonderry
> Air."
>
> Katy
>
That's one reason I write fantasy! <ggg> Unless one is deliberately setting
out to be anachronistic, like Julian Rathbone, it is an absolute minefield
for the unwary. I always think of things like tomatos and potatoes, a
staple food now - but I don't think they were around in 15th century Europe!

However, I do think that the internet makes it easier to check one's facts.

Jessica

!
>
> However, I do think that the internet makes it easier to check
one's facts.
>
> Jessica

Yes, bless the internet. However I tend to get lost in ricochet
research...I look something up and in that reference I find something
ese interesting and click on that, and so on for two or three click
and site-hops. You find out the most interesting (and sometimes
useless) things that way.

Katy

--- In , "jessica RYDILL"
<la@l...> wrote:
> > I can sympathize. I once had a character sing "Danny Boy" in
1893,
> > only to learn later that the lyrics were not written till 1913, as
> > the result of a contest to put words to the old tune "Londonderry
> > Air."
> >
> > Katy
>
I have just had a similar problem. I gave the Earl of Warwick a
fondness for 'the finest brandywine from the Cognac district,' (it
goes nicely with his expensive tastes and ostentatious lifestyle)
only to be informed by one of my experts that brandy first appeared
in the 16th century and Cognac (three times distilled) in the 17th!

Ann

--- In , aelyon2001
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "jessica RYDILL"
> <la@l...> wrote:
> > > I can sympathize. I once had a character sing "Danny Boy" in
> 1893,
> > > only to learn later that the lyrics were not written till 1913,
as
> > > the result of a contest to put words to the old
tune "Londonderry
> > > Air."
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> I have just had a similar problem. I gave the Earl of Warwick a
> fondness for 'the finest brandywine from the Cognac district,' (it
> goes nicely with his expensive tastes and ostentatious lifestyle)
> only to be informed by one of my experts that brandy first appeared
> in the 16th century and Cognac (three times distilled) in the 17th!
>
> Ann

But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a bodice-
ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th century. (In
any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong but I
believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any of
its incarnations.)


Katy

> But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a bodice-
> ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th century.
(In
> any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong but
I
> believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any of
> its incarnations.)
>
>
> Katy


I must have missed that one! It's Tower Bridge that opens and closes
(not all that often these days) and that only dates from the 1890s.

Someone in a similar discussion on the LMB website cited an episode
in which the Countess of Warwick tries to cheer Anne Neville up after
her betrothal to Edward of Lancaster by plying her with hot chocolate!

Ann

Ann

--- In , "jessica RYDILL"
<la@l...> wrote:
>
> > 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!
> >
> Oh Brunhild! I hadn't better recommend "Kings of Albion", also by
> Rathbone...but the anachronisms there are entirely deliberate. He
seems to
> imply quite cheerfully that the upper classes went in for a spot
of b*ggery
> on the side (including Edward IV), has them speaking like
stereotypical
> upper-class twits, and in one episode manages to refer to a scene
from "The
> Shining".
>
> Jessica

LOL someone bought it me as a present, Jessica. It remains unread
until such time as I feel I can forgive him! I have no real issue
with buggery, or even incest in a novel, but I fear that deliberate
anachronism of the type Rathbone prefers is exceedingly bad style.

--- In , "jessica RYDILL"
<la@l...> wrote:
> > I can sympathize. I once had a character sing "Danny Boy" in
1893,
> > only to learn later that the lyrics were not written till 1913,
as
> > the result of a contest to put words to the old tune "Londonderry
> > Air."
> >
> > Katy
> >
> That's one reason I write fantasy! <ggg> Unless one is
deliberately setting
> out to be anachronistic, like Julian Rathbone, it is an absolute
minefield
> for the unwary. I always think of things like tomatos and
potatoes, a
> staple food now - but I don't think they were around in 15th
century Europe!
>
> However, I do think that the internet makes it easier to check
one's facts.
>
> Jessica

Absolutely. Fredegund could not present Chilperic with a stirrup cup
before riding out to face Sigibert since the stirrup didn't exist.
There are hundreds of potential mistakes here, but does that justify
making them deliberately? It may be his "style" (and I use the term
advisedly and purely in the sense of his own personal method) to use
anachronism, but he chooses what were lousy phrases in the 20th
Century!!!!
By the way, something else about Midnight King is the
repetitiveness. She has a real "graylix" fixation. There were other
things I noticed which she referred to page after page in spurts,
that I found rather excessive. Let's face it, I didn't find anything
in it I liked! (Not even the "heroine"! LOL)

> >
> I have just had a similar problem. I gave the Earl of Warwick a
> fondness for 'the finest brandywine from the Cognac district,' (it
> goes nicely with his expensive tastes and ostentatious lifestyle)
> only to be informed by one of my experts that brandy first
appeared
> in the 16th century and Cognac (three times distilled) in the 17th!
>
> Ann

I knew there was some reason why that term irritated me so much in
Candice Robb's 14thC novels!!!

> But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a bodice-
> ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th century.
(In
> any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong but
I
> believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any of
> its incarnations.)
>
>
> Katy

I think you are right - but in the medieval period it had houses on
it - a little difficult to open or one would tip out the inhabitants!

> Someone in a similar discussion on the LMB website cited an
episode
> in which the Countess of Warwick tries to cheer Anne Neville up
after
> her betrothal to Edward of Lancaster by plying her with hot
chocolate!
>
> Ann
>
> Ann

ROFLMAO. I think I am going to cry....

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> > But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a
bodice-
> > ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th century.
> (In
> > any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong
but
> I
> > believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any
of
> > its incarnations.)
> >
> >
> > Katy
>
> I think you are right - but in the medieval period it had houses on
> it - a little difficult to open or one would tip out the
inhabitants!

Actually, the bridge did open. There's a very good book on the
history of the bridge - 'Old London Bridge' by Patricia Pierce -
which is well worth a read as the Bridge was a really amazing feat of
engineering and sheer determination.

There was a 30-ft-long timber drawbridge between two of the piers
nearer the Southwark (southern) end; it is apparently first mentioned
in 1257. As you might guess, there were no houses on that bit. There
were two gateways on the bridge - the Great Stone Gate at the
Southwark end, and the Drawbridge Gate on the bridge itself, at the
London end of the drawbridge. Drawbridge Gate was the one used for
displaying traitors' heads. There was an issue over which of the two
gates should be taken as the limit of the City's jurisdiction.
The purpose of the drawbridge was of course to protect London from
attack from the south and also to let boats through - some of the
docks such as Queenhithe were upstream of the Bridge.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a
> bodice-
> > > ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th
century.
> > (In
> > > any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong
> but
> > I
> > > believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any
> of
> > > its incarnations.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > I think you are right - but in the medieval period it had houses
on
> > it - a little difficult to open or one would tip out the
> inhabitants!
>
> Actually, the bridge did open. There's a very good book on the
> history of the bridge - 'Old London Bridge' by Patricia Pierce -
> which is well worth a read as the Bridge was a really amazing feat
of
> engineering and sheer determination.
>
> There was a 30-ft-long timber drawbridge between two of the piers
> nearer the Southwark (southern) end; it is apparently first
mentioned
> in 1257. As you might guess, there were no houses on that bit.
There
> were two gateways on the bridge - the Great Stone Gate at the
> Southwark end, and the Drawbridge Gate on the bridge itself, at
the
> London end of the drawbridge. Drawbridge Gate was the one used for
> displaying traitors' heads. There was an issue over which of the
two
> gates should be taken as the limit of the City's jurisdiction.
> The purpose of the drawbridge was of course to protect London from
> attack from the south and also to let boats through - some of the
> docks such as Queenhithe were upstream of the Bridge.
>
> Marie

Thanks - I think the only pics I have seen of it show houses right
across.

> > >
> > That's one reason I write fantasy! <ggg> Unless one is
> deliberately setting
> > out to be anachronistic, like Julian Rathbone, it is an absolute
> minefield
> > for the unwary. I always think of things like tomatos and
> potatoes, a
> > staple food now - but I don't think they were around in 15th
> century Europe!
> >
> > However, I do think that the internet makes it easier to check
> one's facts.
> >
> > Jessica

Lots of authors seem to feel, and have said, that fantasy is easier
to write because you can make everything up. I personally find it's
very hard to write because you have to make everything up.

> By the way, something else about Midnight King is the
> repetitiveness. She has a real "graylix" fixation. There were other
> things I noticed which she referred to page after page in spurts,
> that I found rather excessive. Let's face it, I didn't find
anything
> in it I liked! (Not even the "heroine"! LOL)

Please, someone, tell me what "graylix" is. I'm envsioning something
like that pickled sturgeon stuff, gravlax or whatever it is, and
wondering why it figures so frequently in a novel more or less about
R III.

Katy

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "brunhild613"
> <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a
> bodice-
> > > ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th
century.
> > (In
> > > any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong
> but
> > I
> > > believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any
> of
> > > its incarnations.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Katy
> >
> > I think you are right - but in the medieval period it had houses
on
> > it - a little difficult to open or one would tip out the
> inhabitants!
>
> Actually, the bridge did open. There's a very good book on the
> history of the bridge - 'Old London Bridge' by Patricia Pierce -
> which is well worth a read as the Bridge was a really amazing feat
of
> engineering and sheer determination.
>
> There was a 30-ft-long timber drawbridge between two of the piers
> nearer the Southwark (southern) end; it is apparently first
mentioned
> in 1257. As you might guess, there were no houses on that bit.
There
> were two gateways on the bridge - the Great Stone Gate at the
> Southwark end, and the Drawbridge Gate on the bridge itself, at the
> London end of the drawbridge. Drawbridge Gate was the one used for
> displaying traitors' heads. There was an issue over which of the
two
> gates should be taken as the limit of the City's jurisdiction.
> The purpose of the drawbridge was of course to protect London from
> attack from the south and also to let boats through - some of the
> docks such as Queenhithe were upstream of the Bridge.
>
> Marie

Good heavens! Maybe I should mentally apologize to the author of the
bodice-ripper, though I think she was merely accidentally correct. I
had thought that London Bridge was always a solid structure, having
read many times that in the Medieval unless a boat could make its way
between the pilings, ships disembarked and took on their passengers
below the bridge and barges plied the river upstream of the bridge.

The things one learns at this site...

Katy

----- Original Message -----
From: "brunhild613" <brunhild613@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Ricardian Novels


> --- In , "jessica RYDILL"
> <la@l...> wrote:
> >
> > > 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!
> > >
> > Oh Brunhild! I hadn't better recommend "Kings of Albion", also by
> > Rathbone...but the anachronisms there are entirely deliberate. He
> seems to
> > imply quite cheerfully that the upper classes went in for a spot
> of b*ggery
> > on the side (including Edward IV), has them speaking like
> stereotypical
> > upper-class twits, and in one episode manages to refer to a scene
> from "The
> > Shining".
> >
> > Jessica
>
> LOL someone bought it me as a present, Jessica. It remains unread
> until such time as I feel I can forgive him! I have no real issue
> with buggery, or even incest in a novel, but I fear that deliberate
> anachronism of the type Rathbone prefers is exceedingly bad style.
>
I must say I didn't mind it - the anachronisms are so blatant that it acts
as a kind of (ahem!) Brechtian alienation - I mean that one never loses
awareness that this is an imaginary treatment of the history. And like the
Warrington book, I feel it therefore challenges one to question "historical"
records.

Jessica

> > > I can sympathize. I once had a character sing "Danny Boy" in
> 1893,
> > > only to learn later that the lyrics were not written till 1913,
> as
> > > the result of a contest to put words to the old tune "Londonderry
> > > Air."
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> > That's one reason I write fantasy! <ggg> Unless one is
> deliberately setting
> > out to be anachronistic, like Julian Rathbone, it is an absolute
> minefield
> > for the unwary. I always think of things like tomatos and
> potatoes, a
> > staple food now - but I don't think they were around in 15th
> century Europe!
> >
> > However, I do think that the internet makes it easier to check
> one's facts.
> >
> > Jessica
>
> Absolutely. Fredegund could not present Chilperic with a stirrup cup
> before riding out to face Sigibert since the stirrup didn't exist.
> There are hundreds of potential mistakes here, but does that justify
> making them deliberately? It may be his "style" (and I use the term
> advisedly and purely in the sense of his own personal method) to use
> anachronism, but he chooses what were lousy phrases in the 20th
> Century!!!!

But surely the whole point is that one cannot authentically recover the
speech of the middle ages? Rathbone uses blatant anachronisms to remind us
of that, in part - of course it is also a joke! But really to represent
living speech without using sub-fustian, one needs to create a language that
is neither modern nor medieval. Something that is so deliberately
anachronistic may date less annoyingly than a mere rendering of modern
speech.


> By the way, something else about Midnight King is the
> repetitiveness. She has a real "graylix" fixation. There were other
> things I noticed which she referred to page after page in spurts,
> that I found rather excessive. Let's face it, I didn't find anything
> in it I liked! (Not even the "heroine"! LOL)
>
It's obvious that book wasn't your cup of tea! I guess we will have to
agree to differ. To me, the graylix were an imaginary mythical beast, and
they were part of a world full of mythical beasts and spirits. Rather like
a tapestry of "La Dame a la Licorne".

Jessica

> > But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a bodice-
> > ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th century.
> (In
> > any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong but
> I
> > believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any of
> > its incarnations.)
> >
> >
> > Katy
>
> I think you are right - but in the medieval period it had houses on
> it - a little difficult to open or one would tip out the inhabitants!
>
Well, that is a real howler...especially as someone pointed out that it was
the 19th century Tower Bridge, with steam-powered hydraulics, that used to
open!

It reminds me of a conversation with one of my "readers", a lady in Wyoming,
about dripping mist! She was troubled that my characters came in out of the
mist dripping! We had to conclude that mist was different in Wyoming...

But are American readers more critical in terms of factual accuracy?

Jessica :)

> > Someone in a similar discussion on the LMB website cited an
> episode
> > in which the Countess of Warwick tries to cheer Anne Neville up
> after
> > her betrothal to Edward of Lancaster by plying her with hot
> chocolate!
> >
> > Ann

> ROFLMAO. I think I am going to cry....
>
Ouch! Well I suppose if it was alternate history one could insert a
visiting Aztec prince...after all, 1492 and xocolatl isn't THAT far off!

Jessica

> > > That's one reason I write fantasy! <ggg>

> Lots of authors seem to feel, and have said, that fantasy is easier
> to write because you can make everything up. I personally find it's
> very hard to write because you have to make everything up.

LOL! Well that is an excellent point Katy. In fact also one has to be
internally consistent. Myself, I don't write "pure" fantasy - my novels
take place in alternate worlds with magic, rather like Freda Warrington's.
They are not "pure" alternate history either, because of the magical
element. I tend to take historical fact as a jumping off point - but as I
said earlier, if I were going to have people drinking hot chocolate or
coffee in the 15th century, I would want to make it clear why it was there.

What period(s) do you write about?

> Please, someone, tell me what "graylix" is. I'm envsioning something
> like that pickled sturgeon stuff, gravlax or whatever it is, and
> wondering why it figures so frequently in a novel more or less about
> R III.

The graylix is a lion-like animal with a human-type face.

Jessica

> > > > But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a
> > bodice-
> > > > ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th
> century.
> > > (In
> > > > any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm wrong
> > but
> > > I
> > > > believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in any
> > of
> > > > its incarnations.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > >
> > > I think you are right - but in the medieval period it had houses
> on
> > > it - a little difficult to open or one would tip out the
> > inhabitants!
> >
> > Actually, the bridge did open. There's a very good book on the
> > history of the bridge - 'Old London Bridge' by Patricia Pierce -
> > which is well worth a read as the Bridge was a really amazing feat
> of
> > engineering and sheer determination.
> >
> > There was a 30-ft-long timber drawbridge between two of the piers
> > nearer the Southwark (southern) end; it is apparently first
> mentioned
> > in 1257. As you might guess, there were no houses on that bit.
> There
> > were two gateways on the bridge - the Great Stone Gate at the
> > Southwark end, and the Drawbridge Gate on the bridge itself, at the
> > London end of the drawbridge. Drawbridge Gate was the one used for
> > displaying traitors' heads. There was an issue over which of the
> two
> > gates should be taken as the limit of the City's jurisdiction.
> > The purpose of the drawbridge was of course to protect London from
> > attack from the south and also to let boats through - some of the
> > docks such as Queenhithe were upstream of the Bridge.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Good heavens! Maybe I should mentally apologize to the author of the
> bodice-ripper, though I think she was merely accidentally correct. I
> had thought that London Bridge was always a solid structure, having
> read many times that in the Medieval unless a boat could make its way
> between the pilings, ships disembarked and took on their passengers
> below the bridge and barges plied the river upstream of the bridge.
>
> The things one learns at this site...

I too thought it was a solid structure - I have in my mind an engraving by
Wenceslaus Hollar from the 17th century which shows houses built right
across.

But you are right, Katy, this board is a wonderful place for checking one's
facts - and assumptions!

Jessica

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
>
> > >
> > I have just had a similar problem. I gave the Earl of Warwick a
> > fondness for 'the finest brandywine from the Cognac district,'
(it
> > goes nicely with his expensive tastes and ostentatious lifestyle)
> > only to be informed by one of my experts that brandy first
> appeared
> > in the 16th century and Cognac (three times distilled) in the
17th!
> >
> > Ann
>
> I knew there was some reason why that term irritated me so much in
> Candice Robb's 14thC novels!!!

I assumed that she had got it right. But according to my expert,
brandy first appeared in 1513, when a Dutch wine shipper sought to
save on import duties into England by distilling his wine to reduce
its volume, expecting the customers to add water before drinking. In
fact the customers developed a taste for as it was. 'Brandy' is
apparently a corruption of brandtwein, meaning burnt wine.

Apparently, Candace Robb manages to include St George's Chapel,
Windsor, in one of her books as it stands today, even though it was
begun by Edward IV, and completed by Henry VIII (only the choir -
with a wooden roof rather than its fan vault - was completed in
Edward's time. Edward III did indeed build a chapel on the site, but
it was quite different and, if I remember what my informant told me
correctly, a good deal smaller.

Ann

> From: "jessica RYDILL" <la@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 20:38:03 +0100
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Ricardian Novels
>
> Well, that is a real howler...especially as someone pointed out that it was
> the 19th century Tower Bridge, with steam-powered hydraulics, that used to
> open!

yes this was the bridge those Americans tried to buy, and thought they were
buying when they bought the old London Bridge! :-)
Paul

> > anachronism, but he chooses what were lousy phrases in the 20th
> > Century!!!!
>
> But surely the whole point is that one cannot authentically
recover the
> speech of the middle ages? Rathbone uses blatant anachronisms to
remind us
> of that, in part - of course it is also a joke! But really to
represent
> living speech without using sub-fustian, one needs to create a
language that
> is neither modern nor medieval. Something that is so deliberately
> anachronistic may date less annoyingly than a mere rendering of
modern
> speech.

What I meant here is that they were appalling phrases in their own
time - why choose such diabolically BAD English - correction,
American - to transpose into the 11th century? He could at leats
have had the decency to choose witty ones! He has a very poor sense
of humour in my opinion: probably not a Monty Python fan.
>
>
> > By the way, something else about Midnight King is the
> > repetitiveness. She has a real "graylix" fixation. There were
other
> > things I noticed which she referred to page after page in spurts,
> > that I found rather excessive. Let's face it, I didn't find
anything
> > in it I liked! (Not even the "heroine"! LOL)
> >
> It's obvious that book wasn't your cup of tea! I guess we will
have to
> agree to differ. To me, the graylix were an imaginary mythical
beast, and
> they were part of a world full of mythical beasts and spirits.
Rather like
> a tapestry of "La Dame a la Licorne".
>
> Jessica

I realised that - but in that case she should treat them as mythical
and not have them treated as normal every day animals, like a sort
of early pit bull! If she had left it having mythical fights with
equally mythical "pards" I might have stomached it, but to have them
transposed into real life rather changed that perspective and
therefore was, for m if not you, inappropriate. But then I like
history, not fantasy.

>
> I assumed that she had got it right. But according to my expert,
> brandy first appeared in 1513, when a Dutch wine shipper sought to
> save on import duties into England by distilling his wine to
reduce
> its volume, expecting the customers to add water before drinking.
In
> fact the customers developed a taste for as it was. 'Brandy' is
> apparently a corruption of brandtwein, meaning burnt wine.
>
> Apparently, Candace Robb manages to include St George's Chapel,
> Windsor, in one of her books as it stands today, even though it
was
> begun by Edward IV, and completed by Henry VIII (only the choir -
> with a wooden roof rather than its fan vault - was completed in
> Edward's time. Edward III did indeed build a chapel on the site,
but
> it was quite different and, if I remember what my informant told
me
> correctly, a good deal smaller.
>
> Ann

Mind you, she's American isn't she? That might explain it! It may
not be so easy to visit sites and check things from there. There's
always the web of course....

I suppose I must mention the book which has to be the all time worst
read....I managed two pages before returning it to the library. In
those two pages queen Emma (as in Cnut) had sex in the church with a
Viking, watched by her albino son Edward the confessor hiding in the
rafters. Edward told daddy, the alcoholic Ethelred who promptly beat
Emma to a pulp and locked her in the cellar. All in a mere two
pages! I couldn't take the pace. I don't know what it was called,
just that it was by a man called Gene something. I do wonder
occasionally how the hell he followed up that start!

--- In , "jessica RYDILL"
<la@l...> wrote:
>
>> The graylix is a lion-like animal with a human-type face.
>
> Jessica

That sounds like a griffin, more or less. I think I'd much rather
find gravlax in my kitchen than a graylix, all things considered.

Katy

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> yes this was the bridge those Americans tried to buy, and thought
they were
> buying when they bought the old London Bridge! :-)
> Paul

As a bit of trivia, when Old London Bridge arrived at US Customs (in
pieces in many many crates), it was passed duty-free was "large
antique."

Katy

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "brunhild613"
> > <brunhild613@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > But neither boble compares to the one I cited earlier, in a
> > bodice-
> > > > ripper...London Bridge opening and closing in the 12th
> century.
> > > (In
> > > > any century, for that matter...someone correct me if I'm
wrong
> > but
> > > I
> > > > believe London Bridge has never been an operable bridge in
any
> > of
> > > > its incarnations.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Katy
> > >
> > > I think you are right - but in the medieval period it had
houses
> on
> > > it - a little difficult to open or one would tip out the
> > inhabitants!
> >
> > Actually, the bridge did open. There's a very good book on the
> > history of the bridge - 'Old London Bridge' by Patricia Pierce -
> > which is well worth a read as the Bridge was a really amazing
feat
> of
> > engineering and sheer determination.
> >
> > There was a 30-ft-long timber drawbridge between two of the piers
> > nearer the Southwark (southern) end; it is apparently first
> mentioned
> > in 1257. As you might guess, there were no houses on that bit.
> There
> > were two gateways on the bridge - the Great Stone Gate at the
> > Southwark end, and the Drawbridge Gate on the bridge itself, at
> the
> > London end of the drawbridge. Drawbridge Gate was the one used
for
> > displaying traitors' heads. There was an issue over which of the
> two
> > gates should be taken as the limit of the City's jurisdiction.
> > The purpose of the drawbridge was of course to protect London
from
> > attack from the south and also to let boats through - some of the
> > docks such as Queenhithe were upstream of the Bridge.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Thanks - I think the only pics I have seen of it show houses right
> across.

Yes, I see I've caused a lot of surprise. I had heard of the
drawbridge myself - it was an issue at times of crisis from Kent such
as Cade's Rebellion (Cade's men cut the ropes so it couldn't be
raised against them) - but I'd always imagined it as something much
smaller right at the Southwark end that just closed off the bridge,
and not as a gap in the bridge itself. I don't know why - a bridge
has to span some sort of a gap.
I think one of the reasons one never notices it in pictures is that
even at 30ft long it was still only one 20th of the length of the
bridge, and the pictures tend to be views from the London shore, so
that the relatively short gap in the houses is obscured by the
buildings in front, particularly the Drawbridge Gate itself. Once you
know what you're looking for, though, youy can spot it in some
drawings.
The drawbridge was used until just two years before Richard became
king, and tolls were taken from ships passing through to help fund
the upkeep of the Bridge.
Another lister (can't recall who) mentioned boats having to let
passengers off at the bridge. That's also true. I obviously can't
recall all the details of the book, but the drawbridge was only
opened for ships, which had to pay for the privilege.
The reason people would have to disembark to go upstream was that the
broad piers restricted the flow of water to such an extent that the
water level could be as much as 6ft higher on one side than on the
other, and so you essentially had high rushing wiers between each
pier; even when the difference was less, rapids were formed. Also,
the wide broad base of the piers could be hidden under the water but
still high enough to catch the bottom of the boat. 'Shooting the
bridge' was possible only when the tide was right, and boatmen would
gather and wait. "Then. . . the watermen raced to be first through
the Bridge, exhibiting a competitive, sometimes violent streak
thought to be typical of Londoners. This frequently resulted in men
being drowned, and boats being smashed, ground against the piers, or
even stranded on a pier that the high water dangerously hid from
sight; in the latter case the boat remained sitting helplessly on the
pier for six hours until the next high tide." (Pierce, p46).

Keeping the bridge standing was a constant job of work, and the
repaired piers got wider and wider, and the rapids between them
hairier and hairier. Apparently the bridge was allowed to fall into a
bad state during Henry VI's reign, and in 1437 the Great Stone Gate
at the Southwark end, and the pier on which it stood, collapsed,
taking part of two arches and several houses with it. So the bridge
was out of commission then until it was repaired.
In 1463 a faulty winding mechanism on the drawbridge resulted in
delay to vessels bound upstream for Queenhithe. After that when two
ships arrived at the bridge together, the smaller was ordered to
unload at Billingsgate. The toll at this period was 6d, and the
Common Council forbade the Bridge Wardens to charge any more.

In 1471 Fauconberg's men attacked the Bridge. This time the
drawbridge had been raised, but they set the Great Stone Gate on
fire, which spread up to the Drawbridge (or the gap where it should
have been), but they didn't take the bridge, and those rebels who
entered the city had to do so by boat.
In 1481 the Wardens petitioned the Common Council about damage done
to the tower at the Drawbridge, as well as to the other arches nad
piers, by the vibrations of the iron-shod carts - so these were no
longer allowed to use the bridge. The drawbridge structure was also
weakened by constant use, so it was decreed that it should now be
raised only for great "necessity and defence". By Stow's time,
apparently, Queenhithe had become almost forsaken.
Also in 1481, apparently a public loo on the birdge known as "the
common siege" fell into the water and five men were killed.
Pierce doesn't mention any bridge happenings after that until 1500.

Marie

> In 1471 Fauconberg's men attacked the Bridge. This time the
> drawbridge had been raised, but they set the Great Stone Gate on
> fire, which spread up to the Drawbridge (or the gap where it
should
> have been), but they didn't take the bridge, and those rebels who
> entered the city had to do so by boat.
> In 1481 the Wardens petitioned the Common Council about damage
done
> to the tower at the Drawbridge, as well as to the other arches nad
> piers, by the vibrations of the iron-shod carts - so these were no
> longer allowed to use the bridge. The drawbridge structure was
also
> weakened by constant use, so it was decreed that it should now be
> raised only for great "necessity and defence". By Stow's time,
> apparently, Queenhithe had become almost forsaken.
> Also in 1481, apparently a public loo on the birdge known as "the
> common siege" fell into the water and five men were killed.
> Pierce doesn't mention any bridge happenings after that until 1500.
>
> Marie

Thanks for that, very informative. I knew Fauconbourg attacked the
Tower, seem to have missed any reference to the bridge.

> .
> Also in 1481, apparently a public loo on the birdge known as "the
> common siege" fell into the water and five men were killed.
> Pierce doesn't mention any bridge happenings after that until 1500.
>
> Marie

That sounds like a "seige perelious" indeed.

Marie, you and others have fascinating information and I appreciate
your sharing it with us.

Katy

Hi. Actually I did get through it and found it well worth while even
though I have a few issues with it (Hughes clearly loves his
alchemists, and almost has the reader spellbound into accepting that
people with pale faces and dark hair or autumn birthdays are bad
news).

Oh dear! That's me done for then LOL.

However, I did find it hard going. I got it with my Christmas
money and finished it in the spring, I think. At points I found I had
to go back and make notes to get it all in order in my head before
continuing. I actually found the front end of the book much harder
going than the end. I probably wouldn't have persevered except that
I had already noticed a few things in the department of symbolism or
Arthurian links that I wanted answers to. I would highly recommend
persevering as I do think it adds a huge amount to understanding of
the period. And it does get better.

As I mentioned to Paul, I got that book mixed up with the one Hughes wrote
on Richard's piety (in which I did get stuck). I would be fascinated to
follow up this other Hughes book. If I can get through it!

Jessica (I had no problem with Michael Hicks)

> 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.
>
Have you considered e-publishing, Brunhild? I have been wondering about it
as I have a sequel no-one seems keen to publish.

Getting an agent is half the struggle. Fantasy authors have "dedicated"
agents but I am not sure about historical fiction.

As I mentioned, it took me a long time and many failed submissions before I
finally found an agent. It was partly luck in that an established author
suggested that I try his agent. However in general I found agents more
friendly and willing to read my manuscript than publishers. Unsolicited
submissions were a dead loss. Yet my sister's experience was totally
different. She published several short stories in the magazine Interzone
and was "headhunted" by a publisher. She too has a long track-record of
rejection slips.

But the great problem you face is the market. You can't second-guess it
because publishers plan several years ahead. A friend of mine recently had
a manuscript rejected by an agent who was hoping for something "more like
The Name of the Rose"! What one does not know is whether the agent wanted
something more heavyweight.

My experience mainly centres on the English market - I only sold my novel to
the American market subsequently and I suspect that is a whole different
ballgame.

Jessica

> >
> Have you considered e-publishing, Brunhild? I have been wondering
about it
> as I have a sequel no-one seems keen to publish.

I have and discarded the idea! That's sad that the publisher won't
follow up, having "got there" as it were.
>
> Getting an agent is half the struggle. Fantasy authors
have "dedicated"
> agents but I am not sure about historical fiction.

I have approached a few and the anser is "We don't do historicals,
no demand at present or not taking on new writers". :-(
>
> As I mentioned, it took me a long time and many failed submissions
before I
> finally found an agent. It was partly luck in that an established
author
> suggested that I try his agent. However in general I found agents
more
> friendly and willing to read my manuscript than publishers.
Unsolicited
> submissions were a dead loss. Yet my sister's experience was
totally
> different. She published several short stories in the magazine
Interzone
> and was "headhunted" by a publisher. She too has a long track-
record of
> rejection slips.

I did have very positive feedback from one who raved about it, but
that was Minerva (Press? there are 2 Minervas), and they turned out
to be Vanity so I didn't do it.
>
> But the great problem you face is the market. You can't second-
guess it
> because publishers plan several years ahead. A friend of mine
recently had
> a manuscript rejected by an agent who was hoping for
something "more like
> The Name of the Rose"! What one does not know is whether the
agent wanted
> something more heavyweight.

Quite, and as my librarian friend says they simply aren't shifting -
and publishers want blockbusters not slow but steady.
>
> My experience mainly centres on the English market - I only sold
my novel to
> the American market subsequently and I suspect that is a whole
different
> ballgame.
>
> Jessica

I considered the Australian market actually as my father lives
there. Havn't done anything about it yet.
Brunhild