Sunday, September 11, 2011

Bastard, Conqueror, King

Today's book is about the well-known English King, William the Conqueror. He famously conquered England in 1066 after the battle of Hastings and ruled England thereafter. He's also known for instituting probably the first census of England in the great survey of the property of England and Wales in 1086 recorded in the Domesday Book. Someday, I would like to have a look at the Domesday Book. Today, however, I will stick to the book I'm reviewing.

The book is The Conqueror by Georgette Heyer. Yes, Ms. Heyer, beloved for her fluffy Regency romance, also dabbled in other periods of history. This book covers William's life before he conquered England and became King; when he was just a "humble" Duke of Normandy. William had a difficult life - he was illegitimate, but his father left no legitimate heirs and William had to fight to maintain his hold on the duchy.

In typical historical novel fashion, Heyer does not tell the story from William's perspective, but invents a best friend, Raoul de Harcourt and has him narrate the story. Although that may even be too much of a description for how the book is actually written. The book is written from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, mostly centering around Raoul, although his Saxon friend Edgar, William's wife Matilda, and even William all get their turn. The problem, really, is with the style of the narrative. The book reads more like a medieval chronicle or a retelling of a myth. William was here and did this, he rode here and fought battle here. He's always putting on some sort of armour or clothing described in medieval terms, drinking wine from horns, and galloping on horses. There's not really any description that grounds the story for the reader. Only vague descriptions of where the parties are. I didn't really get a clear sense of place and time, other than it was long ago and far away. I prefer historical novels to really set me in the place and time, and then invite me in, so it becomes the present to me when I am reading and I have to actively recall the current year as I set down the book. This book felt like I was reading a medieval chronicle and I didn't really become absorbed in it. Maybe it's a function of how historical novels were written in 1931.

Also, every now and again, Heyer would put in a somewhat anachronistic conversation. Usually her characters speak in "ye olde English", using somewhat archaic forms of speech and using the ancient terms for things. However, sometimes Heyer would drop the archaic forms of address and have characters speak in a fairly modern way. This was slightly jarring.

And, my usual criticism with historical novels - historical flaws. Now, given that the book was written 80 years ago, it could be that new scholarship has verified some of the problems found in the book and that the specific facts I have problems with were unknown to the writer. Let's hope!

Both of my issues surround William's wife, Matilda. (I guess I've just spoiled the book there, but, really, with historical novels there are no spoilers. It's already happened!) Matilda is the daughter of the Count of Flanders and was married to William after a somewhat "rough wooing". (The legend is that Matilda wouldn't have William, because he was a bastard. He then beat her, and that brought Matilda around. The legend is the basis for what happens in the book.) That is not my historical problem, however. The legend tells that Matilda rejected William because he was a bastard. However, Heyer has Matilda reject William both for his illegitimacy and because she is a widow and had sworn never to marry again. Where did this come from? Now, I am far from an historian, but neither Britain's Royal Families by Alison Weir, nor Wikipedia, mention anything about a first marriage for Matilda. I have no idea where this came from. And, since ultimately it has very little bearing on the story, why put it in?

The second historical falsehood involves the character of Judith of Flanders. In the book, she is described as Matilda's sister. (She marries a Saxon nobleman whose brother Harold is defeated by William at Hastings.) However, Judith was not Matilda's sister. She was Matilda's aunt. A little detail, but important. I understand that Jean Plaidy (another historical novelist) described Judith as Matilda's sister in her novel about the time period, so it may by a case of not enough in depth research. Further, Matilda and Judith are nearly about the same age - so Judith would have been a very young aunt to Matilda! That could explain the confusion about their relationship.

Despite my criticisms, I did enjoy the book and really was interested in the pull of cultures represented by Raoul and Edgar. It's sparked my interest again in this time period, and I may have to check some books out on this from the library. The story was a good one, I just wish the telling of it had been better.



Saturday, September 3, 2011

A Queen Among Men

This will be an interesting book review. I bought the book The Lady Queen: The Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sicily by Nancy Goldstone, with some Christmas money. I started it right away and quickly got bogged down. I felt the book dragged and that there wasn't enough focus on Joanna. Then various library books and life events intervened and I put the book down for awhile. Then I picked it up again and read through a few more marriages and intrigues before getting sucked back into the pile of library books threatening to go overdue without being read. Eventually I picked up the book again about a week or so ago and tore through it. I was fascinated and wanted to know all about Joanna. So I have finished the book, but it almost feels like I've read two different books!

I think, in order to get an accurate perspective on the book, I'm going to need to read it again, all in one sitting. That's not likely to happen soon, but here are my thoughts on the book after my recent split reading of it.

Joanna was Queen of her own realm in a time when women didn't usually rule their own kingdoms. Even Eleanor of Aquitaine, for all her own power, was nominally just a Queen Consort. (That said, I believe that she was Duchess of Aquitaine in her own right, so she wasn't entirely powerless.) Joanna ruled on the turbulent Italian peninsula from 1343 to 1382. As she was predeceased by her father, she succeeded her grandfather to the throne. Sadly, Joanna was beset by a number of male cousins both from Hungary and from the Italian region who thought that they should be king. Joanna and her sister were involved in various schemes by these cousins and forcible and unhappy marriages were not uncommon. In addition to all of that, Goldstone weaves in the history of the Popes in Italy and Avignon, problems in central Europe (Hungary), wars in France and Spain as well as the battles between the Guelphs and Ghibellines. That's a lot of story for one small book!

That's where I had problems with it initially - I felt that the author was too focused on really trying to set Joanna firmly in her time period and show just how interconnected everything was that she lost sight of Joanna and her story. I understand that all of these other issues were going on at the time - and that they did affect Joanna. However, Joanna's story was complicated enough (especially with all of that family!) that I felt swamped by the additional information. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed the latter half of the book more - there seemed to be more focus on Joanna. Joanna really hit her stride as a Queen and I felt the end of the book reflected that.

One other nitpicky note - I would like the year I'm reading about to be put up in the top right hand/left hand corner of each page. The book covers so much information and packs in so many dates that sometimes I would forget where I was and would have to flip back a few pages to get to the last date with a year attached to it to figure out what was happening. I think that would also help humanize Joanna a little bit - the reader could look at the date and think, Wow, Joanna's only 20 and look at all the stuff she was dealing with at the time! It would help draw a connection between the reader and the subject.

If you are interested in obscure European royalty (that probably shouldn't be obscure!) you should check out The Lady Queen. I would be interested to know how it reads all the way through as opposed to when it's broken up by a long stretch of time. I find Goldstone to be slightly dry at times, but eventually the subject overcomes the writing. Queen Joanna deserves to be better known - although maybe fiction would be a better home for her. I look forward to reading a fictionalized version of this fascinating Queen's life.