Information Nuggets

Despite my thoughts on the content of the book Outliers, I enjoyed the writing of the book and decided to check out other works by the author, Malcolm Gladwell. And sure enough, next time I was at the library What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures was perched prominently on the new non-fiction shelf. I snapped it up right away.

This book is a little different than Outliers. Instead of a book tied around a central thesis, What the Dog Saw is a collection of essays Gladwell wrote for The New Yorker magazine. Gladwell picked the pieces himself, and divided them thematically into three groups: people, predictions, and psychology. The essays are on a variety of topics which fit into one of those three themes. I read about Enron, ketchup, serial killers (in a particularly vivid and slightly graphic essay that I unfortunately read just before going to bed. Maybe less detail next time!), plagiarism, hair dye, and the Pill.

I really quite enjoyed this book. I enjoyed the format of essays and the variety of information I learned from each essay. Each small, perfectly written piece contained several nuggets of information. My favourite essay was about ketchup. Have you ever wondered why there are so many varieties of mustard but not ketchup? (I hadn't realized this until I read the book!) You will find out in What the Dog Saw and the answer is very interesting. Books don't necessarily need to have an overarching theme to be successful, and I enjoy learning about a variety of topics when I read. The essay format is perfect - like short stories in a non-fiction world. You can read it a little at a time without having to sit down and read the whole book at once (unless you want to!).

A few of the essays discussed financial information in terms that I found a little complex - for example, I read about two investors and some kind of options. Not stock options that en employee gets from his employer, but some other kind of imaginary financial mumbo-jumbo that somehow involves betting on the movement of stocks and making money off of it. I didn't quite understand that essay. However, I'm sure the target audience of The New Yorker understands options just fine! That said, I enjoyed the articles on Enron very much and would like to read more about what Gladwell has to say about Enron and other financial disasters like it.

I think the essay format works very well for Gladwell, and I would be interested to read more of his essays, if he were to publish more in a book format. He is a good writer and is able to translate some complex information into clear, plain text for the average reader to understand. So much of the writing in the social sciences area can be dry and academic, so it is nice to read something that you can learn from, but that will entertain you at the same time. I think I will check out Gladwell's other books, The Tipping Point and Blink and report back! In the meantime, I recommend What the Dog Saw. Enjoy!

Canada Reads Challenge

Today was a very exciting day in the world of books. It's the day when the five finalists for Canada Reads were chosen!

Okay, so if you don't watch/listen to/surf CBC, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Basically, the point is this: 5 great Canadian novels are picked. Each novel is supposed to represent a work that it is important for Canadians to read. The authors must be Canadian, but I don't believe that the setting of the book needs to be Canadian, although I am not sure on that point. Each book is championed by a Canadian celebrity. Then for one suspenseful week in February, the books are discussed on the radio (at 11:30 am here in Alberta) (hosted by Jian Ghomeshi) and a book is voted off every day. The last book standing at the end of the week is the winner!

So why am I telling you this, you ask? Well, this year I am getting involved. Instead of merely listening to the show and hearing the celebrities discuss the books, I am actually going to read the books myself so I am completely informed by the time the contest starts! (That's why the books are announced now - the point is to read them all before the climatic showdown.)

Here are the books and their celebrity supporters, in the order as seen on the CBC website (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2010/11/24/canada-reads-panel.html):

Essex County by Jeff Lemire (advocate: Sara Quin [the Sara part of the band Tegan & Sara])

Unless by Carol Shields (advocate: Lorne Cardinal [Davis from Dog River])

The Bone Cage by Anie Abdou (advocate: Georges Laraque [Hockey player, Battle of the Blades participant])

The Birth House by Ami McKay (advocate: Debbie Travis [lifestyle guru])

The Best Laid Plans by Terry Fallis (advocate: Ali Velshi [CNN Journalist])

This is a varied collection of books - from graphic novels (Essex County) to one of Canada's greatest novelists, Carol Shields. (And no, I've never actually read a Carol Shields book.) I'm very interested to see how the graphic novel will work out - I've never read one and I'm interested to see how I like the format. Of the other 4 books, the two I'm most interested in are The Bone Cage (about amateur athletics) and The Best Laid Plans (about a political strategist backing an honest man for MP). The Birth House and Unless seem to be more serious novels about drama in the family life; like maybe something Oprah would choose for her Book List. This doesn't mean they can't be good, even excellent, novels, but that's not really my style. I'll be interested to see how I like them.

Now it's off to the library website to join the sure-to-be-increasingly long hold lines as news of the picks spread and everyone wants to read the books before February. I'll post my reviews of the books up here as I finish them, and then will come back in February to listen to the panel discussions and post my responses and reactions to the discussions and the final pick. Read along with me and leave your thoughts in the comments. Or live vicariously through me, but still leave your comments anyway. Happy Reading Canada!

Third Time's the Charm

Guy Gavriel Kay is a great Canadian historical fantasy author. Since I love that aspect of the fantasy genre, one would expect me to be all over his books - not only historical fantasy but written by a Canadian too! However, it has not gone well with me and Guy Gavriel Kay. I've tried twice before to read one of his novels, and failed, both times. I was saddened - was this author not for me? Why didn't I like his work when everyone else loved it? I'm pleased to say that, finally, this third time I have succumbed to the charm of one of his novels and finished the entire thing in a matter of days.

The first Guy Gavriel Kay I tried was Sailing to Sarantium which is inspired by Byzantium. I am fascinated by the rich and varied history of the land known as Byzantium and thought I would love the book. Wrong! The book was okay, but I didn't particularly like the main character, the mosaicist Crispin. He was sad and depressed, seemingly uninterested in his own life or the role he was to play in the novel. Crispin is traveling to Sarantium - a city modeled on the ancient Constantinople. I was so bored by the book that I didn't even make it to Sarantium; I quit before Crispin even made it there.

However, I knew that Kay was an excellent author, and thought that maybe I just found real-life Byzantium so attractive that no historical fantasy could top the actual historical records of that strange and unique place. (For more about Byzantium, read A Short History of Byzantium by John Julius Norwich [it condenses his 3 volume epic into one delightful summary]. The Byzantine empire and the city of Constantinople come to life in this stunning history. You, too, will feel nothing but sadness at the end of the book as Constantinople falls to the Turks and her last Emperor tore off his imperial robes to fight and die with the common soldiers. A beautiful, wonderful, epic book.)

So, I decided to start at the beginning with The Summer Tree, the first in his Fionavar Tapestry trilogy. This is pure fantasy - no historical gracenotes here. Five young university students meet a mage and agree to go back with him to his world. However, during the transfer process one of the students changes his mind and tries to break the circle. The four students awake in Fionavar with no idea of the whereabouts of their companion. Various adventures and mythical happenings commence, but I became uninterested and quit at around the time to story shifted to what happened to the student who broke the circle.

I'm not entirely sure why I disliked the book. I don't think I really bonded to any of the students, and so much of it seemed so Tolkien-esque - which can be a real problem for fantasy. Dwarves and elves and mages, oh my! And all with these Celtic-type names that you don't really know how to pronounce and so stumble over as you read. There's nothing wrong with dwarves and Celtic mythology and the like, but sometimes it feels just a little overdone.

Frustrated now, I decided to try Kay one last time. So I picked A Song for Arbonne at random off the shelf and brought it home. This is one of Kay's historical fantasy books and involves the sunny southern land of Arbonne (thing southern France) and her greedy and cold northern neighbour, Gorhaut (think northern France). Arbonne is a land of singers and songwriters, presided over by a woman, under the authority of the goddess Rian, and following a courtly code of love. Gorhaut is cold, disdainful of women (very much so!), follows the male god Corannos and has just signed a terrible treaty with yet another northern neighbour resulting in the loss of a good portion of Gorhaut's land.

The main character is the young mercenary, Blaise of Gorhaut. He despises the soft and womanish Arbonnais, but is happy to take their money and work for them. But other characters pop in and out of the story too as their fates intertwine: Signe, the countess of Arbonne; Ariane, leader of the Court of Love; Lisseut, the singer and Rosala, Blaise's sister-in-law. Over and above it all runs the sad, tragic story of Urte de Miraval, his wife Aelis, and the trobadour noble Bertran de Talair. Even as Arbonne must confront the deadly threat from the north, it is threatened to be torn apart from within from the events surrounding Urte, Aelis, and Bertran.

Finally, a Guy Gavriel Kay book I liked! I liked all the main characters and really was pulled along with the story. By the end of the book I was just racing, page after page, wanting to get to the end, desperate to find out what happened - both in the past and what was going to happen in the present. I liked the subtle historical French overtones and found that it helped to picture the scenery of Arbonne. One slight difficulty - when Kay set the narrative in Gorhaut he used the present tense instead of the usual narrative past tense. For example, on page 219, the first sentence of Chapter 9 reads:

On the bright, mild morning in autumn when her life changes forever, Rosala de Garsenc is returning carefully from her favourite walk along the sloping, tree-lined path from the water mill back to the castle when she sees her father-in-law waiting for her astride his horse in the open space in front of the drawbridge.

For whatever reason, I find that tense, when used in fiction, jarring. Perhaps this is Kay's point - he overly-emphasizes that we are in Gorhaut and they do things differently here. But I already get that from the descriptions and the actions of the people of Gorhaut. I don't need the tense change as well to emphasize something I already understand.

Sadly, Kay has not written any other books about Arbonne (at least, not yet). But now that I've tried and actually liked one of his works, I may check out some of his other historical fantasies; avoiding carefully any about Byzantium.

A Reading Rut

Hello, faithful readers. Well, as you may have surmised from my lack of posts here recently, I am in a rut. A reading rut. Yes, I do have 3 different books on the go right now, but somehow I just don't want to read any of them. So, instead, I'm whiling away my usual reading time reading Entertainment Weekly (all about Harry Potter), Glamour (the festive Christmas issue!), and recaps of Gossip Girl episodes on Television Without Pity (TWOP). And I don't even watch Gossip Girl. That much. (Actually, reading the recaps on TWOP is better than watching Gossip Girl - the recapper is very erudite and intuitive with the right amount of snark. You find out exactly what happens on each episode with an enormous side-helping of wit and psychological insight. The only thing about reading the recaps is that you don't get to see the great outfits Serena and Blair pull off in each episode.)

Ahem, sorry, this space is not about my varied TV-show obsessions that I get. It is about books. And right now I am reading three different books - none of which I am entirely satisfied with. What am I reading that has me down in the dumps?

The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir. This is a good book by one of my favourite authors. I am reading it for an upcoming post which should be highly entertaining (at least to those history buffs out there!). However, upon occasion, Weir can be a little dry in places. Plus, the story of Henry's wives is so familiar to me that it can be difficult to read the same history again. But I do like Weir, so I'll take a short break from it and then jump right back in with Anne Boleyn.

A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman. This was recommended to me by a friend as an excellent way to get into the Medieval mind. And - she was right - the book is a fascinating exploration of the life and times of a 14th century nobleman. The one problem: it is extremely detailed about all the aspects of life in those times. There is a lot to get through and I can't just skim through it with my usual quick read. An excellent book - just rather dense and it takes time to read.

And finally, I am also reading This Scepter'd Isle by Merecedes Lackey and Roberta Gellis. This book is a magical retelling/reimagining of the life of Henry FitzRoy, bastard son of Henry VIII. Now, subject matter like this is near and dear to my heart - I have long wanted to write/read a "history" of Henry VIII (fictional, obviously) that incorporated magic and the unknown into the commonplace tale of Henry VIII and his 6 wives. Maybe Anne Boleyn really was a witch and lured Henry away from Catherine with witchcraft. Maybe an evil wizard actually killed Jane Seymour. I think that mixing of magic and reality would be very interesting to read.

However, this book is not quite it. The first problem is, there are too many characters and I'm only past the first 2 chapters! Any book that starts off with a list of characters is troublesome. First of all, I'm not going to read it because I'm not going to remember all these names (many of which sound the same as they are that sort of usual fantasy Celtic-esque stuff), and secondly, because if I can't figure out who the characters are from the book and narration then the writer isn't doing a good job. The writer should tell me who all my characters are and why they are important. If you have to have a list at the beginning, then you have too many characters.

The second problem is that the concerns of Henry and his court seem to be more in the background. Sure, I've only just started the thing, but it seems to be more about the concerns of two sets of identical fraternal twins (one brother, one sister) who are elves. One set is with the good elves, one set is with the bad elves. So, everyone is tall, blonde, and beautiful, and everything is just a little too run-of-the-mill, faux-Celtic, Tolkien-esque fantasy to me so far. Sure, Celtic-based fantasy makes sense in England (after all, wasn't Henry's brother called Arthur to emphasize the links with the Tudor family's Celtic/Welsh past?) but this is overdoing it. I didn't really want to read about some elves and the Tudor court, I wanted to read a book where King Henry was the chief elf, or wizard, or troll, or whatever. I want Henry and his wives to be the main characters, not some identical blonde elves with long, Celtic-sounding names. I want to read a fantasy involving Henry VIII in London, not about Rhoslyn Teleri Dagfael Silverhair of the palace of Caer Mordwyn! I suppose it's in poor taste not to like the book because it's not what I wanted it to be. But it may be awhile before I get back to it.

Hmmmm....looks like my problem is too much history, not enough non-fiction. So, faithful reader(s) - any suggestions to help me break out of my reading rut? Can you suggest a book I'll actually continue reading beyond the first few chapters? Give me your suggestions in the comments below.

Pottermania

With the release of the first half of movie version of J. K. Rowling's last Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the second half will be out in the summer), Harry Potter has been back in the news. I'm very excited about the new movie coming up and hope to see it in theatres soon - although not too soon as to avoid crowds.

Recently J.K. Rowling commented to the effect that she would not be adverse to writing a new book set in the Harry Potter universe - although she explained that the book would not feature Harry Potter prominently or at all, therefore allowing Daniel Radcliffe the ability to continue his adult career unimpeded (I suppose this presumes that the book would be immediately turned into a movie - given Rowling's unprecedented success, that appears highly likely.)

I did enjoy the Harry Potter series and I own the last three books. I enjoyed how it morphed from a likeable series about a young wizard into a full-blown dramatic epic about the battle between good and evil. I even enjoyed the movies too - they were mostly spot-on except for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: too much time spent on the first challenge with the dragon and a whole sequence that didn't appear in the book which meant that other parts of the book had to be shortened or ignored altogether. Just follow the story - the books are already jam-packed with adventure and nothing new is needed. Don't add new things that only serve to take away from the story already contained in the book!

Anyway, a rant about the movie is not the point of this post. The point is: would you be interested in reading more about the Harry Potter world? And, if so, who should Rowling write about? There has been a lot of discussion on this topic at the Entertainment Weekly website lately, and it seems that most of the commenters are split between two possibilities: a sequel with Harry's and Ron's kids at Hogwarts; or a prequel about Harry's parents at Hogwarts. My first reaction when I heard of Rowling's plans was that I would enjoy a prequel. So much of what happened in the Harry Potter series had its roots in the past, so I would like to see that explored. And I agree with the commentators who have suggested that the prequel should be narrated by Harry's mom Lily. That would be a nice change. Although in that case you may not get into all the mischief that Harry's dad got into - so perhaps two books - one narrated by Lily and one by James?

I am not really interested in a sequel about Harry's kids - seeing who their dad was and what happened to him, they'd have a lot to live up to and some pretty tremendous adventures would have to happen to them. I'm happy to leave them where Rowling does at the end of book 7.

Some other interesting suggestions have been made: a book of short stories about various adventures in the lives of various characters (such as Luna, Neville, Snape, James, Lily and so on). That would be interesting in that we would get to meet a bunch of new characters and get little snippets of their lives. There's also been a lot of interest in Neville - many people seem to think that this character was underutilized and has this rich, interesting backstory that never really was fully explored. It would be interesting to hear the Potter story from Neville's point of view. Another intriguing option that I have heard was to rewrite the Potter books from the point of view of another student, maybe a minor character on the edge of the Potter series or even a new character - someone in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. We'd get to see all of Potter's adventures from a new set of eyes, and see how the other students viewed the happenings. Of course, that wouldn't be as epic as the Potter series since Harry Potter was the epicentre of the series - he was the focal point because the adventures were happening to him, not to anyone else.

So, Potterphiles, what would you like to read if Rowling writes another in the Potter universe? Sequel, prequel, or a story about someone else? Let's discuss this in the comments below.

A Tollbooth to Adventure

Finally - another Nosy Bookworm post! This one is so old that I can't even remember what book I had on hold when I saw this title in the stack next to mine. I do put a lot of books on hold - but most of the other holds surrounding my hold are CDs or DVDs, both of which defeat the purpose of finding new books to read.

To recap those who have forgotten since my last Nosy post (including me!) a Nosy Bookworm post involves picking books to read based upon the books next to mine in the hold pickup area at my local library. No, I don't take the other person's hold, I note down the title and put my own copy on hold. Several weeks or perhaps months ago, I was picking up a book and saw beside my hold the classic children's book, The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster. Despite the apparent classic nature of this book, I had never read it, so I decided to give it a try. It apparently is very popular, as I had to wait awhile before my copy came in.

However, I could see why the book was so popular as I began. This book was amazing! My only regret - that I never read it as a child and had to wait to read it as a grown-up.

The Phantom Tollbooth is about a young boy named Milo. Milo is very bored and uninterested in things: school, life, education. He doesn't see the point of learning all the things he's taught in school. He doesn't really know what to do with himself. One fateful day, Milo returns home from school to find that a parcel has been delivered to him in his absence. He opens the parcel, follows the directions, and soon finds that he has built himself his very own tollbooth! Included with the tollbooth is fare for the booth, a rulebook, and a map. Milo is puzzled by the map - none of those places exist! However, this tollbooth promises a brief diversion from his usual boredom and so he picks a place at random, hops into his little toy car, and heads through the tollbooth.

Oh, what delights await the reader beyond that magic portal! After a few quick stops in Expectations and the Doldrums, Milo finds himself along the road to Dictionopolis, where he learns the origins of words, meets some new friends (the dog Tock and the Humbug) and ends up on a quest to restore Rhyme and Reason to Dictionopolis and Digitopolis. The quest is filled with magical places and creatures - the beautiful symphony that plays the colours of the world, a silent valley where sound was taken away, and the Island of Conclusions.

The author teaches the reader several important lessons, but wraps up the pill of learning in the most terrific jam of sparkling wordplay. Juster is rather Ffordian in his imagination and I do wonder if Jasper Fforde read The Phantom Tollbooth before embarking upon his Thursday Next adventures, as I can see the similarities in tone, style, and idea. If you liked Jasper Fforde, you will love The Phantom Tollbooth.

Because the book is, nominally, for children, it is short, the type is big and the pages are interrupted by scratchy pen and ink drawings that I could have rather done without. (I prefer to picture things for myself.) It would have been fun to read it as a child and enjoy the adventure and excitement, and then to read again as I grew older to absorb all the lessons tucked inside the wordplay. Nearly every adventure teaches Milo and his companions an important lesson, but the reader is so entertained by the author's cleverness that they either don't notice or don't mind the lessons being taught. The lessons are good lessons about the importance of learning and thinking and understanding and the book itself is a perfect example of how learning can help you.

In sum, this book is a lovely afternoon's read. And I would suggest such a read - just one big gulp all in one sitting. (Make sure you don't have anything else you're supposed to be doing first!) This is a classic of children's literature, and I do recommend placing a copy in every home with a child who can read. The child, and the parent, will probably be better off for it.

As you can see, Avro really loved the book this week. Cessna just had to come over to have a look and see what Avro was up to!

Fictional Scandals

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular or even occasional basis knows the love I have for Alison Weir as a supremely excellent non-fiction chronicler of Britain's Royals. She is the author of my favourite book, Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy, and numerous other books on such varied topics as the wives of Henry VIII, Katherine Swynford (mistress and wife to John of Gaunt - ancestress of the Tudors and today's Royal Family), Isabelle of France (Queen to Edward II), and the murder of Lord Darnley (second husband of Mary Queen of Scots and ancestor of today's Royal Family). Recently, Weir has decided to augment her excellent non-fiction works with historical fiction.

Her first historical fiction book was Innocent Traitor. It is about Lady Jane Grey, grand-niece of Henry VIII and briefly Queen of England. It got rave reviews and was a success. I was interested in trying out Weir's fiction and found her second historical fiction attempt on the shelf at my library: The Lady Elizabeth. This book covers the life of Queen Elizabeth I from her childhood up to her accession to the throne.

The two best known Tudor monarchs are probably Henry VIII and Elizabeth I - but many people forget about the two Tudors in between, Elizabeth's half-siblings; Edward VI and Mary I. This book covers Elizabeth's childhood and young womanhood growing up during those reigns. The book is not bad and somewhat enjoyable. It is not as enthralling as a Sharon Kay Penman historical novel, but it gets into the feelings and opinions of the main characters more than a usual non-fiction book. It is almost half-way between non-fiction and fiction. I think I prefer Weir's non-fiction works, but I would like to read Innocent Traitor and her other fiction works before I decide fully.

You can tell as you read the book that Weir really knows her stuff - she knows the relationships between people, the clothes they wore, the food they ate, and how people acted. She just needs to draw the reader a little bit more into her world. However, I thought her portrayal of Elizabeth was engaging and sympathetic. Some people may quibble with Elizabeth's seeming precociousness in her scholastic abilities, but Elizabeth was quite a brilliant monarch and well-known for her intelligence at a young age, so the characterization is apt. I also enjoyed the character of Mary. Mary is often ignored and neglected by historians or writers who focus only on her nickname as "Bloody Mary" for her suppression of Protestantism during her reign. But Mary was also an intelligent, thoughtful woman. She loved her half-sister and half-brother very much, and perhaps in them she found the children she would never have. I think it is time for a sympathetic portrait of Elizabeth's big sister.

As usual, I have my quibbles. And while this is a major one which normally would make me throw the book away in disgust, I persevered and finished anyway and still enjoyed the novel. When Elizabeth was in her middle teens (14-16), she lived for a while with Queen Katherine Parr, recent widow of Henry VIII. Before Katherine's marriage to Henry VIII, the twice widowed lady was contemplating a third marriage, for love, to one Thomas Seymour, brother of the late Queen Jane Seymour and uncle to the future Edward VI. Unfortunately, Henry's interest in Katherine disrupted those plans, and Katherine dutifully married the King. However, Henry's death left Katherine a widow again, and this time she was determined to marry for love. She married Tom Seymour a mere 4 months after the King's death and they set up house in Chelsea.

Elizabeth came to live with Katherine and Tom. Tom soon realized the attraction that Elizabeth held for him - not only in her person but in her position - she was the next heir but one. It is well documented by history, and by Weir, that Tom began visiting Elizabeth in her bedroom early in the morning, generally before she was dressed and was still in her flimsy nightgown. He would engage in horseplay and tickle and tease the young girl. Katherine witnessed the horseplay herself on a few occasions and even participated in a jest in the garden; holding Elizabeth while Tom slashed her mourning gown into ribbons. Tom's scandalous behaviour towards Elizabeth and Katherine acquiescence and participation are well documented. But Weir takes it one step further: she has Tom and Elizabeth sleep together - just once! - which results in a pregnancy for the young Elizabeth. Elizabeth is sent away in disgrace to the country manor of Cheshunt, where a midwife attends her secret miscarriage. This leads to her determination not to give herself to any man again, and to hold herself up as the pinnacle of virginity.

That is where I disagreed with Weir - I do not believe that Seymour and Elizabeth had any sort of relationship. He probably wanted one, but I don't believe he got away with it. I think there is some sort of flimsy historical evidence about a midwife attending a birth for a lady that looked like Elizabeth, but the veracity is doubtful. I understand that Weir used the incident to further cement Elizabeth's distrust of men and marriage, but I thought the plot twist was unnecessary and that Elizabeth already had enough reason to be wary of men and marriage without suffering through a pregnancy by Thomas Seymour. Usually, a large disagreement with the characterization of a historical person would make me put the book down, but I persevered, and finished anyway. If that bit was taken out, I would have enjoyed the book a lot more.

What is interesting is that in her afterword, Weir states that she firmly believes that Elizabeth lived and died the as the true Virgin Queen she was. Weir has been outspoken as a historian that there is no definite proof that Elizabeth was not the Virgin Queen she depicted herself to be. However, despite "going against her instincts as a historian", she enjoyed the artistic freedom to depict Elizabeth's life otherwise. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that - sure, books have to sell copies, but usually history is interesting enough that the fact presents the best story, even when fictionalized. I hope that readers of the book will remember that it is fiction and that they should look elsewhere for fact.

Overall, this book was not bad and had some really positive elements. I did enjoy the characterization of Elizabeth, but had some questions about the plot points. Still, historical fiction is better than most other genres any day. Even my cat is a historical fiction fan - she really got into this book!

Scandalous History

With a title like Royal Affairs: A Lusty Romp Through The Extramarital Adventures That Rocked the British Monarchy, how can you not want to pick up the book and read it? I grabbed it off the shelf, took it home, and read it. I'm not quite sure that the book lived up to its title, but it was an enjoyable read overall.

The author of Royal Affairs is Leslie Carroll. She writes women's fiction (whatever that is), historical fiction (under a pen name), and now historical non-fiction. While I may not entirely agree with her points in Royal Affairs, Carroll seems like a likeable person overall. I checked out her blog (www.royalaffairs.blogspot.com) and it was quite interesting. You can tell that she is passionately interested in history, and there were some good links to some other websites of historical interest. I especially enjoyed her discussion of The Tudors, the new BBC show of the chequered marital career of the infamous Henry VIII. When people find out I'm a history buff, they always ask if I'm watching The Tudors and then are surprised when I say no. I'm not watching it because I'm a history buff and the show gets so many things wrong! Carroll shares my concerns about the actor who portrays Henry VIII (too small and dark - Henry was tall, muscular, fair to red-headed, and handsome [until he got old and fat]) and the liberties taken with Henry's sisters (combined into one person, married to the King of Portugal, and supposedly murdered said King. Really? The true historical version of the stories of Margaret and Mary Tudor is much more interesting than that fictionalized balderdash. Read Sisters to the King by Maria Perry for the true story.) (Also, if the show ever moves on from the Tudors to the Stuarts, they're gonna have some 'splaining to do!) [For those who need 'splaining now, let me know and I'll briefly (promise!) explain in the comments how the Tudors turned into the Stuarts.] At any rate, while I didn't entirely enjoy her book, I do like Leslie Carroll as an author and may check out some more of her non-fiction and fiction works.

On to the book. The book is, obviously, about scandalous royal affairs. However, Carroll takes a broad definition of the word "affair": whereas I would define an affair as a consensual sexual relationship between two people, at least one of whom is married; Carroll takes a broader view and looks at general relationships between royals and a special subject. Using my definition, a few of the "affairs" she talks about would not be in the book at all: Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, Charles II and Frances Stuart, and Victoria and John Brown.

Where I have my problems with the book is the various couples that Carroll chooses to talk about or not talk about. For example: Henry VIII and Jane Seymour did not have an affair! They did not sleep together prior to marriage - in fact, Jane Seymour very clearly held Henry at arm's length and protected her virtue by returning his gifts while he was still married to Anne Boleyn. That does not mean that Jane did not strive and plan to be Queen, but she was not Henry's mistress before he married her. Sure, Anne's downfall and Jane's triumph make a good story, but they are hardly royal "affairs". This story would have fit better in a book about royal marriages - which I understand she's working on.

Also, Charles II and Frances Stuart. Charles II slept with a lot of women. That is historically documented. One of these women was NOT Frances Stuart. He wanted to sleep with her, but she refused him. The infatuated Charles used her portrait as the representation of Britannia on a victory medal struck to commemorate military success. This same portrait was later used on British coinage as the representation of Britannia. The author's point is that Frances made a scandal by refusing to sleep with Charles II when it was open season for lust and lechery at his court, but then it's not really a royal affair - it's more a story about something that didn't happen.

I would rather have had Carroll use the space in her book to tell stories about affairs that did happen. Of course, she cannot put every affair in, which is probably why Henry I (1100-1135: one of the Norman kings) and his 25 illegitimate children did not make it in. (More mistresses and children than even the profligate Charles II!) However, she missed one of the most important royal affairs in British Royal History: that of the widow of Henry V, the French Princess Catherine and her servant Owen Tudor. No, that name is not a coincidence: Katherine and Owen are the grandparents of Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty. Catherine was the young and beautiful widow of the war-mongering Henry V. Henry and Catherine had one child, Henry VI, who became King before he was even one year old. Catherine was not part of the regency council which actually governed the realm, but as the Dowager Queen, she remained in England and was still vaguely important. Catherine fell in love with her Welsh keeper of the wardrobe, Owen Tudor. Catherine and Owen had at least 5 children before her death in childbirth in 1437. Catherine and Owen were probably not even married: there is no evidence of a marriage and we're not even sure exactly how many children they had. What is sure is that two boys, Jasper and Edmund, survived to adulthood. Edmund survived long enough to impregnate his 13 year old wife Margaret Beaufort with the child that would become Henry VII. Jasper had no legitimate issue, but guarded the rights of his nephew fiercely. Henry VII succeeded to the throne by right of conquest (and English royal blood through the Beaufort line), defeating Richard III at the battle of Bosworth in 1485.

Now, if that affair's not scandalous, I don't know what is! Certainly more scandalous (and of more dynastic importance) than Victoria and John Brown, or Fredrick Duke of York (one of the Hanovers) and Mary Anne Clarke. And if one quibbles that Catherine is not really "British" as she was part of the family by marriage and not blood, well, then the tales of Caroline of Brunswick, Princess of Wales (wife of George IV and mother of Princess Charlotte) would also have to be excised. Sure, Caroline was a cousin of George, but she was not considered part of the English Royal Family until she married in to it.

In general, the research was good. She has quite a large bibliography of books, articles, and websites in the back of the book. As per usual, I have my quibbles: when she's talking about Mary Boleyn, she mentions the possibility that Mary's son Henry (nominally by Mary's husband William Carey) was actually the son of Henry VIII as we are unsure when Henry VIII and Mary's affair actually ended. Henry Carey was born in 1526, about the time that Henry VIII started his relationship with Anne Boleyn. However, the author does not mention at all the possibility that Henry VIII may be the father of Mary Boleyn's other child, Catherine Carey. In fact, it is much more likely that Henry VIII is father of Catherine instead of Henry because Catherine was born in 1524! (And, incidentally, was the mother of Lettice Knollys who married Elizabeth I's favourite Robert Earl of Leicester and was mother of Elizabeth's other favourite Robert Earl of Essex.) But there is no mention of this in the book at all.

Further, in her last entry about Prince Charles, the current Prince of Wales, she mentions that Charles will be the first English-born King to be divorced when he succeeds to the throne. According to my research, this is only partly true. (Strictly speaking, Henry VIII was single when he came to the throne and sought annulments, not divorces.) The wiggle-words are "English-born": George I was divorced from his wife Sophia Dorothea (she had an affair - very scandalous!) when he became king in 1714, but, of course, he was born in Hanover.

However, I have found information which may indicate that King John was divorced when he became King in 1199. My favourite book, Britain's Royal Families by Alison Weir, indicates that King John was divorced from his first wife Isabella (or Hawise or Joan or Eleanor) probably before he became King, or at the very least shortly after he became King. (The exact date is not recorded.) John went on to marry the young and attractive Isabelle of Angouleme - their story is a good read as well. Weir is exceedingly thorough in her research and very careful with her terms and will indicate particularly if a marriage ended by divorce or by annulment - two very different things. John was born at Beaumont Palace, Oxford, England. So, I am inclined to think that perhaps King John was the first English-born divorced King - or very nearly, depending on exact dates.

I think the real problem with this book is that it's too basic for me. I've moved beyond this sort of "popular history" and tend to prefer more academic works. Otherwise, I just nitpick at all the things that aren't exactly true or that are open to interpretation. I know too much know to really be satisfied with this type of book. It's still an interesting book, and good for readers casually interested in history or romance, but a serious history reader will probably find it too light.

Stories for All Ages

After recently rereading two novelizations of the classic fairy tale "Beauty and The Beast" (by the same author!) I decided to investigate other novelizations of classic fairy tales beyond the 500 Kingdoms Series by Mercedes Lackey. Robin McKinley does have a novelization of Sleeping Beauty called Spindle's End. I read it and seem to remember that it was pretty good. However, the novel I was really thinking about was one that was in my school library as a child, a novelization of "Cinderella", written by Eleanor Farjeon.

That novel, The Glass Slipper, is, as it turns out, the novelization of a Cinderella play written by Eleanor Farjeon, herself the product of a theatrical and literary family. Sadly, my local library does not have a copy but they did have a copy of another of Eleanor Farjeon's books which I used to own, but apparently don't anymore. Which is too bad, because it's an excellent book - for the young, and the young at heart.

The book is called The Little Bookroom, and it's a collection of various stories by Eleanor Farjeon - many of which I understand to have already been published in various other novels. They are stories for children to be read by children who are more advanced readers or to be read to children by a happy and compliant adult.

There are a wide variety of stories in this collection. The tales range from pure myth to fairy tale to more realistic options. Settings include Paradise, Ancient Greece, the land of Workaday, a country cottage, a train station, and the back lanes of London. Farjeon populates her stories with an entire world of characters: fairies, princesses, kings, little girls, little boys, a goldfish, a Clumber Spaniel pup, and one very special donkey. Farjeon is a master at drawing complete characterizations and stories in only a few precious pages. There are no sappy sweet Disney princesses here! Good characters do generally win out, and bad characters get their comeuppance; but not every time. Sometimes the stories have only the bare minimum of plot - in others the story comes fast and furious. I especially enjoy the rich and detailed descriptions of clothing, furnishings, and landscape in the book. As well, her descriptions of the poverty endured by some of England's children will make you sad. Some stories will move you to tears: see especially "The Connemara Donkey", "And I Dance Mine own Child", "San Fairy Ann", and "The Kind Farmer".

In summary, then, this is a beautiful and precious book and there should be a copy in every home where there is a child, and, indeed, in homes where there are no children! I very much regret giving away my copy: I did not realize what a jewel this book truly is. Among Farjeon's heroes and heroines there is tremendous scope for imagination for even the least imaginative of children. The book deserves a place on every bookshelf beside the more well-known fairy tales. A true children's classic for all ages.

Unfinished

When I start a book, I usually commit to finishing it. It takes a lot to make me put down a book unfinished. Usually I like the book enough to want to know how it ends, even if I'm not enthralled by it. Not every book is amazing - some are merely good or even okay, but I will still usually finish the book. Usually.

The most recent book I tried to read I couldn't. I just could not finish it and had to put it down and probably won't read any further books in the series. Which book is this that sparked my wrath? It is book 2 of the Morland Dynasty series, The Dark Rose, by Cynthia Harrod-Eagles.

Now, I had earlier expressed my reservations with Ms. Harrod-Eagles in my previous post about the first book in the series; The Founding. But I was willing to give her books another chance. But after getting part of the way through The Dark Rose I just had to put it down and walk away. There are two reasons why I had to put the book down: I will discuss them now. Also, I'm not pulling any punches here - I will discuss the book so if anyone does want to read it you may want to stop reading this post now.

First, and this is probably minor, but annoying all the same. The Dark Rose takes place during the reign of Henry VIII, so of course all the families of the wives are involved. (And, indeed, it is kind of neat to meet a number of the wives pre-Henry: especially Katherine Parr and Anne Boleyn - we know what's going to happen, but they, poor ladies, don't, of course.) The Morland family is becoming friends with the Boleyn family. Harrod-Eagles has a character comment on the death of Thomas Boleyn's wife (father of Anne) and express sadness at his resulting second marriage to a woman of low class. And not only once - but twice.

The problem with this comment? It is simply not true. Thomas Boleyn was only married once, and that to Elizabeth Howard, mother of his three children (who lived to adulthood): Mary, Anne, and George. Elizabeth actually outlived both Anne and George, dying a few years after their execution. I checked and double checked this fact in my two books about Anne Boleyn and Wikipedia. Nowhere, anywhere was there any kind of fact that said that Thomas Boleyn's wife had died relatively young and that he had married again. I have no idea what sources Harrod-Eagles is using here, but they are clearly incorrect! And why make such a silly and inconsequential historical mistake? Maybe this becomes an important plot point later in the novel - I don't know. But if it's not an important plot point, why have this clearly wrong fact mentioned twice?

I must say I'm a little suspicious of Harrod-Eagles' research abilities in general. I had a look at her website and her writing output is staggering. In addition to the Morland series, she's written a number of other historical fiction books, general fiction books, and mysteries. She must average a book a year - so I'm not sure how she has time to do all the research and write the novel. Maybe she is just exceptionally quick at writing and researching. But her books don't have that lived-in feeling of a Sharon Kay Penman novel - where you can tell the author did so much research that she probably felt she was living in that time period when she wrote the book!

My second problem with the book concerns a plot point in Chapter 9, about one third of the way through the book. Again, if you want to read this book yourself, don't read this blog any further! Nanette Morland is one of the vast Morland family. She is at court as a lady-in-waiting to Queen Catherine (of Aragon: wife #1 for those of you keeping track at home). There is a great celebration and tournament and Nanette is visited by her half-uncle Paul Morland. (Paul and Nanette's father Jack are half-brothers; Paul and Jack are great-grandsons of the Eleanor in the first novel.) Paul hated his wife and had a mistress, but recently both have died. Before Nanette went to court, the author hinted at romantic tension between the two and they kissed. I was unsure at this point, but continued to read on, sure in my belief that the author would not bring these two characters together.

Well, I was wrong. Nanette and Paul rendezvous in the gardens after the tournament and sleep together. Yes, Nanette had sex with her uncle Paul. A niece and an uncle sleep together. And then talk of marriage and getting some sort of dispensation from the Pope. Really? Really. I do not want to read of incest, thank you very much Ms. Harrod-Eagles. Is the big romantic relationship of the book between a niece and uncle? That is just disgusting and I don't want to read about it. (See also the terrible Philippa Gregory novel Wideacre, which I also couldn't finish - although that was slightly worse being incest between a brother and sister.) I do understand that uncle-niece marriages did happen - but that was in the Habsburg family of Austria and Spain, and we all know what happened to them. (The Spanish branch was so inbred that eventually the last Habsburg king of Spain was a blithering and infertile idiot, died with no heirs, and brought about the War of the Spanish Succession.) But I don't think that uncle-niece marriages were common among the aristocracy/grand families of England, ever. Cousin marriage was very common among both royals and non-royals, but not uncle-niece marriage. Not in England.

At that point I just had to put the book down. I was not interested in reading further about Nanette and Paul's romantic struggles. It was really enough to turn me off of the whole series. Interestingly enough, I've read a few other online reviews of The Dark Rose and no reviews really mention the whole incest aspect or criticize it in any way. So, maybe it's just me, but I'm not really interested in reading a book that uses incest as a pivotal plot point and relationship between two major characters. My skin would crawl every time she mentioned Paul and Nanette. I've put the book down, unfinished, and I will not be reading any further books by Cynthia Harrod-Eagles.

What do you think, faithful readers? Is incest enough to make you put down a book? Have I overreacted? Fortunately for me I am not a huge Cynthia Harrod-Eagles fan, so I don't think I'll be missing much by not reading the rest of her series. Life is short: why read books you're not interested in. Less time with Cynthia Harrod-Eagles means more time with writers I truly adore, like Sharon Kay Penman and Judith Merkle Riley.