Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Why reading Weir is dangerous
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Why reading Weir is dangerous
2005-03-17 20:51:40
My first introduction to the subject of Richard and the Princes was Alison Weir. And, the thing is, she is darnded convincing to anyone new to the subject. Yes, I admit it, I fell for it.
Angela
===============================
She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is part of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section that I had to stop reading it.
Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy", whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke, all that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday, the woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her appearance shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette (this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame her. She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it, described the subject as blonde.
Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of transmitting this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course, and how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to shake off.
What are we seeing when we look at it?
Maria
elena@...
Angela
===============================
She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is part of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section that I had to stop reading it.
Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy", whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke, all that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday, the woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her appearance shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette (this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame her. She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it, described the subject as blonde.
Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of transmitting this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course, and how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to shake off.
What are we seeing when we look at it?
Maria
elena@...
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Why reading Weir is dangerous
2005-03-20 00:39:44
--- In , Maria <ejbronte@o...>
wrote:
> My first introduction to the subject of Richard and the Princes
was Alison Weir. And, the thing is, she is darnded convincing to
anyone new to the subject. Yes, I admit it, I fell for it.
>
> Angela
>
> ===============================
>
> She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is part
of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read
through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying
attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section that
I had to stop reading it.
>
> Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy",
whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot
fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts
out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th
century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke, all
that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday, the
woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her appearance
shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and
artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her
passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette
(this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the
Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or
vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters
tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting
puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological
point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame her.
She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life
portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it,
described the subject as blonde.
>
> Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human
beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which
distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of transmitting
this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is
even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course, and
how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to
shake off.
>
> What are we seeing when we look at it?
>
> Maria
> elena@p...
Uggh! Seward was quite enough for me, thank you. I am proud to say
that I have never read anything by Weir.
wrote:
> My first introduction to the subject of Richard and the Princes
was Alison Weir. And, the thing is, she is darnded convincing to
anyone new to the subject. Yes, I admit it, I fell for it.
>
> Angela
>
> ===============================
>
> She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is part
of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read
through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying
attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section that
I had to stop reading it.
>
> Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy",
whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot
fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts
out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th
century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke, all
that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday, the
woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her appearance
shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and
artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her
passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette
(this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the
Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or
vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters
tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting
puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological
point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame her.
She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life
portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it,
described the subject as blonde.
>
> Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human
beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which
distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of transmitting
this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is
even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course, and
how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to
shake off.
>
> What are we seeing when we look at it?
>
> Maria
> elena@p...
Uggh! Seward was quite enough for me, thank you. I am proud to say
that I have never read anything by Weir.
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Why reading Weir is dangerous
2005-03-20 15:44:21
So you have never read anything by Weir??? Well, it is a good idea
to keep up with the opposition and as a knowledgeable Ricardian you
might enjoy picking holes in her theories (and scribbling insults in
the margin!!!)
Angela
--- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Maria
<ejbronte@o...>
> wrote:
> > My first introduction to the subject of Richard and the Princes
> was Alison Weir. And, the thing is, she is darnded convincing to
> anyone new to the subject. Yes, I admit it, I fell for it.
> >
> > Angela
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> > She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is
part
> of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read
> through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying
> attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section
that
> I had to stop reading it.
> >
> > Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy",
> whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot
> fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts
> out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th
> century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke,
all
> that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday,
the
> woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her
appearance
> shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and
> artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her
> passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette
> (this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the
> Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or
> vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters
> tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting
> puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological
> point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame
her.
> She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life
> portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it,
> described the subject as blonde.
> >
> > Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human
> beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which
> distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of
transmitting
> this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is
> even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course,
and
> how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to
> shake off.
> >
> > What are we seeing when we look at it?
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@p...
>
> Uggh! Seward was quite enough for me, thank you. I am proud to say
> that I have never read anything by Weir.
to keep up with the opposition and as a knowledgeable Ricardian you
might enjoy picking holes in her theories (and scribbling insults in
the margin!!!)
Angela
--- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Maria
<ejbronte@o...>
> wrote:
> > My first introduction to the subject of Richard and the Princes
> was Alison Weir. And, the thing is, she is darnded convincing to
> anyone new to the subject. Yes, I admit it, I fell for it.
> >
> > Angela
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> > She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is
part
> of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read
> through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying
> attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section
that
> I had to stop reading it.
> >
> > Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy",
> whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot
> fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts
> out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th
> century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke,
all
> that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday,
the
> woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her
appearance
> shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and
> artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her
> passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette
> (this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the
> Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or
> vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters
> tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting
> puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological
> point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame
her.
> She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life
> portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it,
> described the subject as blonde.
> >
> > Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human
> beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which
> distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of
transmitting
> this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is
> even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course,
and
> how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to
> shake off.
> >
> > What are we seeing when we look at it?
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@p...
>
> Uggh! Seward was quite enough for me, thank you. I am proud to say
> that I have never read anything by Weir.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Why reading Weir is dangerous
2005-03-22 20:21:54
If only it weren't the library's... I already have a lot to explain about the fat dent in the spine. (The book itself is now quite "Crookbacked".)
amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
So you have never read anything by Weir??? Well, it is a good idea
to keep up with the opposition and as a knowledgeable Ricardian you
might enjoy picking holes in her theories (and scribbling insults in
the margin!!!)
Angela
--- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Maria
<ejbronte@o...>
> wrote:
> > My first introduction to the subject of Richard and the Princes
> was Alison Weir. And, the thing is, she is darnded convincing to
> anyone new to the subject. Yes, I admit it, I fell for it.
> >
> > Angela
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> > She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is
part
> of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read
> through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying
> attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section
that
> I had to stop reading it.
> >
> > Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy",
> whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot
> fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts
> out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th
> century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke,
all
> that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday,
the
> woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her
appearance
> shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and
> artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her
> passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette
> (this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the
> Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or
> vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters
> tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting
> puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological
> point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame
her.
> She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life
> portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it,
> described the subject as blonde.
> >
> > Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human
> beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which
> distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of
transmitting
> this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is
> even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course,
and
> how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to
> shake off.
> >
> > What are we seeing when we look at it?
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@p...
>
> Uggh! Seward was quite enough for me, thank you. I am proud to say
> that I have never read anything by Weir.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
So you have never read anything by Weir??? Well, it is a good idea
to keep up with the opposition and as a knowledgeable Ricardian you
might enjoy picking holes in her theories (and scribbling insults in
the margin!!!)
Angela
--- In , "Rhonda"
<metrlt@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Maria
<ejbronte@o...>
> wrote:
> > My first introduction to the subject of Richard and the Princes
> was Alison Weir. And, the thing is, she is darnded convincing to
> anyone new to the subject. Yes, I admit it, I fell for it.
> >
> > Angela
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> > She's a skillful writer, with an engaging style, and this is
part
> of the danger! I have her "Six Wives of Henry VIII" book, read
> through it once, enjoyed it, went back, and started paying
> attention. SOOO many errors in the Catherine of Aragon section
that
> I had to stop reading it.
> >
> > Incidentally, for those of us collecting bits of "Tony Pandy",
> whether Ricardian or not, I just found another one: as a Diderot
> fanatic, I'm a member of an 18th century study society, which puts
> out a publication. The latest one focuses on hair in the 18th
> century -- economics, political statements made by, the peruke,
all
> that fun stuff. One of the articles concerns Charlotte Corday,
the
> woman who assassinated Marat, and how perceptions on her
appearance
> shift around, and how important it is to many biographers and
> artists to see her as a blonde, even though it is stated in her
> passport, and painted in a life-portrait, that she was brunette
> (this all relates to how the authors/artists perceive the
> Revolution, politics, and the act of either assassination and/or
> vigilanteism). The author points out intriguingly that painters
> tend to keep her dark, while writers go blonde, an interesting
> puzzle I wish she would have gone into more, but that pschological
> point wasn't within the scope of her article, so I won't blame
her.
> She describes one observer who stared point blank at the life
> portrait of Charlotte Corday and, almost while looking at it,
> described the subject as blonde.
> >
> > Later on, the author quotes Umbert Eco on the idea that we human
> beings are woefully dependent on cultural and other blinkers which
> distort our faculty of sight and vision. Our power of
transmitting
> this faulty reception, along the imperfect means of language, is
> even weaker. This made made me cast back on Richard, of course,
and
> how he is depicted, and why the traditional image is so hard to
> shake off.
> >
> > What are we seeing when we look at it?
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@p...
>
> Uggh! Seward was quite enough for me, thank you. I am proud to say
> that I have never read anything by Weir.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.