How did I learn about Ms. Harrod-Eagles? Well, it involves Wikipedia. After I read my book on the Stuarts (see sometime in September) I was curious about other members of the Stuart family, especially the children of Elizabeth the Winter Queen (daughter of James I, ancestress of the Hanovers and today's royal family). One of her children was Prince Rupert (for those Canadians out there - he's the namesake of the famous Rupert's Land that eventually became part of Canada). He was a brave and dashing cavalier who spent his life helping his English relative Charles II reclaim the throne. So, at any rate, I was reading the wiki article about Prince Rupert when it mentioned that he was a main character in a historical novel by the same Cynthia Harrod-Eagles. A few more wiki-links later, and I learn that Ms. Harrod-Eagles is a historical fiction writer who has written a whole series about the Morland family - a wealthy/noble/aristocratic family in England from War of the Roses times to nearly present day. I love epic stories of aristocratic families, so I put the first book on hold and waited anxiously for it to come.
(I should point out here the dangers of over-reliance on Wikipedia - a typo in Harrod-Eagles' list of works misstated her first book as The Foundling instead of correctly as The Founding. Which made it a little difficult to find in the library catalogue at first!)
The book is not really about the struggle between Lancaster and York as it is more about how the family deals with it. Eleanor Courteney is a young woman of good family but little fortune who is allied with the Lancastrian cause. Her ward-holder arranges a marriage between her and the son of a wealthy sheep farmer in England's north - Yorkshire. At first Eleanor is appalled by the low conditions of her new husband's home, and by her new husband, the shy and worshipping Robert Morland. However, she manages to make a place for herself and build up a great empire, while turning the Morland family into a grand family of England's north.
Real historical characters pop up throughout the book. Eleanor is passionately in love with Richard, Duke of York (father of Edward IV), and transfers her family's allegiance to the Yorkist cause - losing some sons and grandsons in battle along the way. Eleanor has 13 children with Robert - not all of them living, and not all of them necessary for the plot (such as the older daughter Anne and younger son John) (unless their descendants come back in another novel down the line). But this book isn't really about what is happening to the Yorks and Lancasters, and sometimes the interaction feels a little forced. Yes, people would have been greatly affected by the Wars of the Roses, but sometimes it just feels like too much that this non-noble family would have been so friendly with the Yorks. At least, however, I agree with the characterizations of these main players in the Yorkist-Lancastrian feud. (For those of you wanting some truly excellent historical fiction about the Wars of the Roses - and specifically the Yorks and Lancasters - read The Sunne in Splendor by Sharon Kay Penman. This is a superb novel and an excellent read about that time period and the motivations of the main parties during this turbulent time in England's history.)
So, with all this historical realism, what was wrong with the book? It never pulled me away from my time into its time like the best Sharon Kay Penman novels will do. At times I felt like I was reading a monk's chronicle of what happened. She had this baby, she had that baby, this child got married, this child had that baby and etc.. Did I feel any emotion or cry when the sons died? No - and usually I'd need a kleenex or two if I really cared about the characters. There's no real sense of setting and place - there are descriptions of the sumptuous clothes worn by Eleanor (which is good - I like clothing descriptions) (at times they seemed a little too sumptuous - this is not even a noble family!), but the book didn't have that same sense of reality one gets from Penman's books where you feel like you really are there. That's not to say that Harrod-Eagles needs to spend paragraphs and paragraphs on description, but sometimes I never really felt like I was anywhere - the characters didn't even seem to acknowledge where they were.
Also, I understand the need for a family tree, sort of. (All my favourite non-fiction books have family trees!) But I almost wished they didn't have one, because when I wasn't sure where a plot line was going to go, I could just flip to the family tree and say, oh, okay, don't worry, he doesn't die now, or oh, this baby's going to be a girl. So maybe a little too much information here?
Speaking of too much information, sometimes there were too many character names. Don't bother in calling the maid Beatrice for 3 pages when in the next chapter you've jumped 3 years, explain that Beatrice has gone off to be married, and then you never hear from her again. I didn't need to know she was named Beatrice! There were other, more important characters that I should have focused on.
I'm also wondering how accurate it was - the way that some of the young ladies in the book behaved was not exactly how I pictured young ladies of gentle birth of that time to be acting. It is difficult - I understand that - the modern woman needs a modern heroine so she can have a point of entry into the book. A woman's lot has changed drastically since the 1400's and I think it can be hard for modern women to realize just how restrictive life was before, well, even 1970 I would say. But there seemed a lot of running around and sneaking out of the house that a parent wouldn't countenance now, nevermind in the 1400's when a young woman was the property of her family.
The book was published in 1980, so perhaps styles of historical fiction have changed since the book was published. Despite my lack of reaction to the book, I am curious enough to want to know what happens to the other Morlands, so I will pick up the next book in the series. I would argue with the blurbs on the back of the book - it's not a "masterpiece of research" nor is it a "page turner" nor is it "The yardstick by which all historical novels are measured." (Obviously, for me, that's Penman.) But it's an okay read and a fairly interesting story, despite my criticisms. I'll try a couple more in the series - maybe I'll like some of the other family members better.
I wouldn't mind some feed-back from my other historical-fiction minded readers out there. (I know there's at least one of you!) Have you read any of the Morland dynasty series? How were they? What do you think of Harrod-Eagles? Are my criticisms apt, or too harsh? Let me know your thoughts on Harrod-Eagles - and do go out and read some Penman. She's excellent!
Nothing compares to The Sunne In Splendour. Not even Alison Weir's (otherwise excellent) book. I'm not a huge historical fiction fan, but I loved Penman's book. I also loved Margaret George's Diary of Henry VIII (and I'm not an Henry apologist by any means). And while it's non-fiction (rather than a novel), Barbara Tuchman's book on the 14th century, A Distant Mirror, is also excellent - I've re-read it a few times.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your critique in that too often I find historical novels infected with modernism. Frankly, psychology is a relatively new science (art, whatever you want to call it) and I don't know that people were so self-analytical back in the day, at least not on the same terms. I think religion played a much bigger part in daily life and thought processes. But novelists have to make their characters likable and relatable (is that a word??)
I'll stick to historical non-fiction, I think. But great post!
It's hard to compare Weir and Penman because you're really comparing apples to oranges - non-fiction to fiction. Weir extensively discusses the events leading up to and during the Wars of the Roses, so you have a good historical and factual background. But Penman breathes a life and soul into Weir's facts and gives you an emotional grounding in the story. You care about these historical figures now because you know them as people. Weir is hamstrung by non-fiction. Penman follows the facts, but she has the freedom of fiction on her side.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, Weir has apparently written a fiction novel on, I believe, Elizabeth I. I shall have to check it out.
I also love Margaret George's Diary of Henry VIII, but I haven't been as able to get in to her other, similar, historical fiction books. I'll check out that Tuchman - sounds interesting.
I don't think that the problem with the book was that they were too analytical. I think the problem is that I didn't connect with anyone so it didn't have that emotional resonance that you need to be fully drawn into the book. And not enough description either. For example, at one point they are in France. But could you tell that they were in France other than the fact that the author said they were in France? No.
From some of the history classes I've taken, I seem to remember that the Renaissance radically changed humankind's way of thinking so that it's hard to relate with anything pre-Renaissance because there was just this huge theoretical shift. And, yes, there were some pretty powerful women back in the day - look at Eleanor of Aquitaine (for example). But you're right in that authors need to make the characters relatable, and so there have to be some concessions to modernity. But not at the expense of a good story - which I think was maybe the case here. I'm still going to read the next one, though, so it's not all bad. Then maybe some Penman!
I have fond memories of "The Founding", atho it's many years since I read it. I liked it, and found its history pretty much OK, although I remember the word "scoop", used for the heroine's gossip-gathering, jarred a litte, but what the hell. I read quite a few more in Harrod-Eagles' series, then when she reached historical periods that don't much interest me, I gave up. Her crime novels, BTW, are excellent, and I think I have at least 2 to catch up on.
ReplyDeleteBeware of Weir -- she is notoriously inaccurate and biassed when it comes to the York & Lancaster period.
If you like fiction about the Yorkist period, you might enjoy my novel TREASON (www.bewrite.books or Amazon.)
Hi Meredith - thank you for your comment! Sorry for the delay: I don't usually check older posts for comments and so I sadly missed yours.
ReplyDeleteAs you will see in November, I have given up on Harrod-Eagles' Morland series, although I may still check out her crime novels. I'm always looking for more good mystery writers and so I will give her works a try.
I usually find Weir to be quite accurate and scholarly when it comes to history. She does use a wide range of primary and secondary sources for her research and is careful to point out the biases in her sources. Maybe her treatment of Margaret of Anjou in Lancaster and Yourk is a little harsh, so it may be time for a sympathetic biography of that poor lady. What do you find inaccurate about Weir?
If I can find your book at my library I will surely check it out - I am a frugal bookreader and usually confine my book purchases to presents for my family!