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.
No comments:
Post a Comment