Book Review!
Jul. 5th, 2005 04:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ricardienneOkay: I've read my "happy book" of the summer. Elizabeth Peters, The Murders of Richard III.
When Josephine Tey wrote Daughter of Time, the Richard III Society, and related organizations, existed in almost complete obscurity. Elizabeth Peters writes what could be called the updated version. Again, a mystery. Again, centered around Richard III and his guilt, or lack thereof.
But not wholly Richard-centric. Because today the Richard III Society thrives, in spite of continued scholarly disapproval. Richard III is now almost as much as about his latter-day defenders than it is about the man himself. Peters' novel reflects this.
The setting is, of course, a meeting of a particularly eccentric branch of the Society, led by an aristocrat who claims descent (through one of his bastards) from Richard. (A particularly amusing line runs something about "We broke from the main Society when they refused to acknowledge his illegitimacy.") The particular occasion is the unveiling of a letter that purports to clear Richard's name -- the Holy Grail of ricardianism -- but its also an excuse to meet at a country house and hold an authentic fifteenth-century feast while taking on the roles of central figures from the drama (Shakespearean and historical) of Richard III. This is also a good way to satisfy that invariable requirement of murder mysteries and assemble a varied cast of characters in a remote country house. The problems begin when a mysterious prankster begins enacting the murders traditionally attributed to Richard through the guests who are roleplaying the victims.
The premise is amusing enough, but better is the way the whole problem of Richard and Richard-scholarship is treated. Peters is clearly a ricardian herself, but she can and does poke fun at the fanaticism of its most dedicated. Obsessively nit-picking, creating (elaborate) justifications, hashing and re-hashing the same stupid facts, ranting about Sir Thomas More -- it's all there to mock. I had to put the book down a few times out of embarrassment. But in the end, it's clear where right lies. And darn it all if I didn't wish I were part of a ricardian society with a convenient castle to play-act in!
The one problem is the historical fact. I think she's quite accurate, but it might be confusing. Actually, I had absolutely no trouble keeping anything straight, but then I'm a fair ricardian myself (c.f. my nom de plume). All the history might get a little messy for a newcomer to the field.
Unceremoniously yanked from grapeyquoter:
Darn it. I'm one whole fifth American?
When Josephine Tey wrote Daughter of Time, the Richard III Society, and related organizations, existed in almost complete obscurity. Elizabeth Peters writes what could be called the updated version. Again, a mystery. Again, centered around Richard III and his guilt, or lack thereof.
But not wholly Richard-centric. Because today the Richard III Society thrives, in spite of continued scholarly disapproval. Richard III is now almost as much as about his latter-day defenders than it is about the man himself. Peters' novel reflects this.
The setting is, of course, a meeting of a particularly eccentric branch of the Society, led by an aristocrat who claims descent (through one of his bastards) from Richard. (A particularly amusing line runs something about "We broke from the main Society when they refused to acknowledge his illegitimacy.") The particular occasion is the unveiling of a letter that purports to clear Richard's name -- the Holy Grail of ricardianism -- but its also an excuse to meet at a country house and hold an authentic fifteenth-century feast while taking on the roles of central figures from the drama (Shakespearean and historical) of Richard III. This is also a good way to satisfy that invariable requirement of murder mysteries and assemble a varied cast of characters in a remote country house. The problems begin when a mysterious prankster begins enacting the murders traditionally attributed to Richard through the guests who are roleplaying the victims.
The premise is amusing enough, but better is the way the whole problem of Richard and Richard-scholarship is treated. Peters is clearly a ricardian herself, but she can and does poke fun at the fanaticism of its most dedicated. Obsessively nit-picking, creating (elaborate) justifications, hashing and re-hashing the same stupid facts, ranting about Sir Thomas More -- it's all there to mock. I had to put the book down a few times out of embarrassment. But in the end, it's clear where right lies. And darn it all if I didn't wish I were part of a ricardian society with a convenient castle to play-act in!
The one problem is the historical fact. I think she's quite accurate, but it might be confusing. Actually, I had absolutely no trouble keeping anything straight, but then I'm a fair ricardian myself (c.f. my nom de plume). All the history might get a little messy for a newcomer to the field.
Unceremoniously yanked from grapeyquoter:
| You Are 20% American |
 Otherwise known as un-American! You belong in Cairo or Paris... Get out fast - before you end up in Gitmo! |
Darn it. I'm one whole fifth American?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Ooh!
Date: 2005-07-06 01:03 am (UTC)In other words, this might be a good time to lose The Murders of Richard III under your bed and consider changing your phone numbers.