A History of Royals discussion
Archived book discussions
>
Buddy Read of the Henry II and Eleanor trilogy by Sharon Kay Penman
I love that tactful phrase, Elizabeth--"relaxed." Covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it? It was mentioned earlier that we seem to share the same readers, and I definitely agree. Whenever I praise one of your books, readers always chime in to say how much they love your writing, so I know there will be a lot of excitement as word spreads that you will be tackling Alienor--stab of envy here, for I really wanted to go with that myself. But I'm sure you'll agree that with our publishers, we learn to pick our battles and I was outvoted on Alienor. I think Roberta Gellis got away with it, though, in her Roselynde Chronicles, didn't she? Since you popped by to chat, I'd like to ask if you think you'll ever move out of the 12th and early thirteenth centuries?
Hi Sharon, Yes,you're right. My readers tend to be yours and yours tend to be mine. Our styles are different, but still on the same page when it comes to readership. It remains to be seen whether I can get away with Alienor when it comes to the actual publication. For the moment I'm getting away with it! I think Robert Gellis probably did - although it was Alinor, which misses out the extra 'e'.
Re moving out of the 12th and 13th. If I do, it will be to go earlier. I'd quite like to do a 'women of the Norman Conquest' trilogy and I see there's a new biography come out about William the Conqueror's Queen. I did put this to my editor, alongside the Eleanor novels and gave her first pick, and she chose Eleanor, but certainly wasn't averse to the other suggestion. I'd also quite like a look at Isabelle of Angouleme, because she has not often been covered. Somewhere I'd love to pull in a shorter novel about what William Marshal got up to in the Holy Land for those two years he was absent - other than obtaining his own burial shrouds. What adventures did he have? No one knows. I'd use the Akashics all the way for that one. Then there's William's Anglo Saxon great grandfather. How did he survive the Conquest when his lands were smack bang in Godwin territory and he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. So there's enough to keep me busy there (if I still have a job) for years to come. I fell in love with the 12thC when I was 15 and I'm (cough) decades older now, so to actually move to another period too far away would be daunting.
What about you? Do you anticipate heading out of the period for future books?
Like you, I prefer the 12th century, Elizabeth. I would like to do one about the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which would feature some of the characters from Lionheart, and I was rather taken with Constance de Hauteville, aunt to King William II of Sicily, husband of Richard's sister Joanna, wife to Heinrich, the Holy Roman Emperor, who held Richard for ransom, and mother of Frederick II. I do want to write about Owain Glyn Dwr, though, so that would require a foray into the late 14th century. Interesting, isn't it, that William Marshal never said anything about his pilgrimage to the Holy Land on behalf of the young king. It is as if he thought it too private to share. All your fans of your two Marshal books would be over the moon if you gave them more of William! And if you ever do Isabelle d'Angouleme, you could call it John's Jezebel after the article about her in King John, New Interpretations.
I think a novel on Owain Glyn Dwr would be fabulous; it's a while since he's been in any kind of literary limelight. but I also like the sound of a Kingdom of Jerusalem novel. I started my historical novel writing life there as the 15 year old when I fell for a knight on a TV series set there. My mother asked me what I wanted for Christmas, hoping to hear clothes and makeup and got 'Stephen Runciman's History of the Crusades I and II please!' I still have that novel in my drawer. I very much enjoyed Judith Tarr's novel about the mid 12thC Holy Land - Queen of Swords. I think that's one deserving of a re-read.I think with William's visit to the Holy Land, the poet didn't have any sources to call on or people with memories, and that it wasn't part of the mainstream of his narrative. I do think though too, that you are right about that time in William's life going very deep. He was in his mid 30's by then and I suspect it was time to take stock.
Hah! John's Jezebel would be a great title!
Mod
Sharon - I love when you tell us stories. It gives so much more depth and fun to the whole discussion. I'm glad you decided to play hooky today.
I just jumped on to say that I am starting the first book tomorrow. I love characters with a sarcastic bent. My whole family is that way, and it just makes them seem more real to me, lol.
Elizabeth wrote: I'd quite like to do a 'women of the Norman Conquest' trilogy and I see there's a new biography come out about William the Conqueror's Queen.I had a couple of questions for you Elizabeth. One, if you do get the chance to write the 'women of the Norman Conquest' trilogy, who would you be writing about (one is probably obviously Matilda of Flanders but I'm curious as to who else you have in mind)? I think it's a great idea and hope you get to do it in the future.
Also, do you remember who wrote this new biography on Matilda of Flanders or what it's called?
message 58:
by
Lyn (Readinghearts), The mod of last resort/Mod #3
(last edited Apr 14, 2011 06:36PM)
(new)
Mod
Elizabeth - I wish Judith Tarr's books were readily available. I have had a couple on my TBR forever, but can't seem to find copies anywhere.
I would love to see a good novel on Owen Glendower, it's been a long time since anyone has written about him, and the only one that comes to mind is Martha Rofheart's Glendower Country. As to the Holy Land, oh yes, I'd be right in line to scoop up that one. It was very overwhelming to visit Israel and Jerusalem a couple of years ago, and realizing just how much history is there, and that you can reach out and touch it. Not to mention, how very close everything is. To finally be able to pray at the western wall, well, I simply can not find the words for it.
Hi Lady Wallingford.If I did do the Norman one, then Matilda of Flanders would be one and Edith Swan-Neck another. I think there would be enough with these two ladies to bring in 3 books with others drawn into their sphere from the Godwin and Normandy sides. I'd be quite interested in looking at William the Conqueror's mother too.
I can't remember where I saw the heads up for Matilda of Flanders - it might have been when I was browsing Google Books, or it might have been on an e-list where I lurk. I'll see if I can find an url.
Well, after reading through this thread, I'm moving When Christ up to now. I was going to read it later this year, but I think I'm going to join in! The Sunne in Splendour is one of my favorite books, so I'm excited to read this one. I've had it on my TBR for quite awhile. So I'll be joining in once I finish The Borgia Bride!!
You'll have to tell us about The Borgia Bride, Aly. I am watching The Borgias, but my knowledge is very superficial and so I can't tell when they are taking liberties or when they are veering off into fantasy. A more Borgia-savvy friend was unhappy with it, but maybe that is the secret to enjoying historical films and television shows--know just enough to be able to identify the major players but not enough to put our blood pressure at risk. I was lucky Kingdom of Heaven didn't give me a stroke!
Sharon, I have been watching the Borgias also, but also like you my knowledge is very superficial. I have actually been enjoying the show. I think you're right about enjoying historical films and such. The Tudors gave me heart palpitations, so I sympathize with you re Kingdom of Heaven!
Hey, The Borgias has Jeremy Irons! I'd forgive a lot for that, though I seriously, seriously doubt the real Rodrigo Borgia was anywhere near as hot as JI. Of course Philippe in Lion in Winter should only have been so lucky to be as drop-dead gorgeous as the young Timothy Dalton. I never saw The Tudors, Aly; I didn't have Showtime then, and later I decided my heart couldn't take it, not after all I'd heard from friends. Speaking of which, they won't even go to see historical films with me, anymore; they say my seething and muttering into my popcorn distracts them from the show.
haha!! Sharon, my fiance says the same thing. We watched The Other Boleyn Girl together and every few minutes I'd pipe up with "that didn't happen!" With the Tudors, which is a great show for eye candy, they changed so many things that didn't need to be changed. Just frustrating. I'd forgive a lot for Jeremy Irons too! He was on an episode of Law and Order SVU that I watched the other day. it was so weird seeing Rodrigo Borgia as a psychiatrist hehe!
Speaking of which, they won't even go to see historical films with me, anymore; they say my seething and muttering into my popcorn distracts them from the show.Lol. I cancelled the premium channels eons ago and I waited paitiently for my turn at the Tudors from the library and when it finally showed up I was too buried and let it go back for others still waiting in line. Perhaps someday.
The Borgia Bride, I read the author's book The Devil's Queen and was rather underwhelmed. She did throw in some rather...ummmm...fanciful plot twists at the end that I wasn't too fond of - especially when there's no author's note to back them up or to just say I made it all up.
Misfit, unfortunately I don't know enough about the Borgias (yet) to make a determination if something happened or not. So, hopefully it's ok. I bought a biography on Lucrezia that I want to follow TBB with. I do appreciate it when authors put notes at the end saying that they changed this and that for whatever reason. That was really the only reason why I didn't mind Alison Weir adding what she did to The Lady Elizabeth.
I feel strongly that writers owe their readers an Author's Note, especially if they have taken liberties with known facts. As you say, readers will accept it as long as the writer is honest and says straight out that he/she is "filling in the blanks" of necessity or explains why theirs is a revisionist history of the historical person or era. I just did a second blog interview with Laurel Corona, who has a new novel out set on the eve of the French Revolution, and Laurel came up with the best commandment for historical novelists that I've ever heard--Do not defame the dead. I just love that! Laurel also had an interesting comment about why she'd chosen to focus on a fictional character in the novel; she said it was because she felt too much invention or embellishment of a real person's life would be a violation of the unwritten pact with readers not to misinform them. I am in total agreement; try to be as accurate as possible and let the readers know when the story veers off on a tangent. Of course this means I just did an 11 page AN for Lionheart!
I also appreciate an authors note but in The Borgia Bride the author claims certain elements were factual when according to the non fiction I've read on the Borgias, that is not necessarily true. It really annoyed me that the author couldn't even get her facts straight for the authors notes in the back. Otherwise, I really enjoyed The Borgia Bride. Sorry for hijacking the thread - more on topic, I started When Christ and His Saints Slept. I'm only 7% in because I have house guests ATM so little time to read except when they're sleeping in from jet lag, lol - but so far im really enjoying it.
I have also been watching The Borgias, and I love it. I know a little about the period and the family so I can point out a couple of errors already. In the tv show, Cesare is the eldest son and for that reason Rodrigo tells him he cannot be a soldier like his younger brother Juan, but must follow in his father's footsteps and go into the church. Anyone who's a Medievalist should smell a rat here, and indeed Cesare was actually the second son, that's why he was in the church and Juan was in the army. Also, in the tv series, Rodrigo elevates Cesare to cardinal very early on, to strengthen his position as new pope, but in actuality Cesare's appointment as cardinal came a few years later.I actually liked The Tudors. Well... sort of. I didn't like it at first, through the first and second series, but by the end I loved it. Because the Tudor period is one of my specialisms, at first the historical inaccuracy bothered me a lot, but then later it didn't because in a way I knew that because of my knowledge I wasn't coming away with an erroneous view unlike those who may not know what was changed... and I weirdly grew to love the character relationships. Characters that I started off thoroughly disliking just put in such stellar and delicious performances that I found myself rooting for them by the end - Charles Brandon, the Seymour uncles, Lady Mary... all of them I disliked for the first season or so they were introduced, but I sort of grew to like them. Although, I never did change my mind about Jonathan Rhys-Meyers being totally wrong for the part of Henry.
Lol, but I do still mutter if and when I go to see historical films. Sharon - I had meant to ask you, when you told me you might write about Balian, what you thought of Kingdom of Heaven. And I must say I agree with you completely about author's notes.
Sharon wrote: "I feel strongly that writers owe their readers an Author's Note, especially if they have taken liberties with known facts. As you say, readers will accept it as long as the writer is honest and sa..."What you said, although *fessing up* to what is fiction doesn't wash with me with Carrolly Erickson and her "historical entertainments". Dear God, what she did with Mary Queen of Scots is beyond the pale. (view spoiler) Aiyee.
I just want to say that this conversation has me fascinated...I just places the first book on hold at the library. I've never been in a reading group before...hoping it's ok if I join up!!
Cristyn wrote: "I just want to say that this conversation has me fascinated...I just places the first book on hold at the library. I've never been in a reading group before...hoping it's ok if I join up!!"The more the merrier I always say :)
Aly wrote: "haha!! Sharon, my fiance says the same thing. We watched The Other Boleyn Girl together and every few minutes I'd pipe up with "that didn't happen!" With the Tudors, which is a great show for ey..."LOL, same here! I had my husband watch TOBG with me and I kept pausing to explain what was inaccurate vs. what really happened - he was not pleased :-) and will only watch a historical movie with me if I promise not to hold the remote.
Lol, I made the mistake of renting TOBG on DVD and watching it with my dad. He walked out well before the end, declaring it unwatchable.
I spent the whole film (at the cinema) admiring the fabric they'd made the costumes from...
It was very pretty . . . I am LOVING "When Christ and his Saints Slept" by the way . . excellent book. I am taking it everywhere with me to read. . . .even the gym (yikes)! Can't wait to start discussing.
Saints was one of my most challenging books, Sabrina, in part because it was sometimes hard to reconcile the differing chronicle accounts. The pro-Stephen ones often differed quite a bit from the pro-Maude ones. Then, too, Stephen and Maude were often their own worst enemies and there were times when I wanted to slap them upside their stubborn heads. Their bad behavior was the reason I created my first major fictional character in Ranulf Fitz Roy; since Henry I was known to have at least 20 illegitimate children, I figured one more wouldn't hurt. My thinking was that Ranulf could give readers someone to root for while the young Henry grew up in the course of the book.
Oh Sharon, I love Ranulf and wish, oh wish he was real. Seeing as I can't put the book down, I'm a little ahead at page 231 and have so many questions as Maude and esp. Stephen baffle me. I'm also a big fan of Robert.Just think of what Maude and Stephen could have accomplished if they worked together. . . I know that was impossible, but . . .
Robert would have made a very good king, Sabrina, at least IMHO, better than either his sister or cousin. I have a scene later in Saints in which his calm finally shatters and he erupts with Maude, confessing to his frustation that he, the eldest son, was barred by circumstances beyond his control. I was surprised (pleasantly so) that so many readers took Ranulf to heart, And he was rewarded for being so likable--he got to appear in all three books of the trilogy! Sometimes a character tends to take over that way. A good example is Maud, the Countess of Chester, Robert's daughter. She initially was supposed to be a minor character, but she was having none of that, thank you. First she volunteered to assist Ranulf in his illicit affair, and then she decided she could get more time on center stage by becoming a good friend to Eleanor. So, like Ranulf, she became a "regular" in the trilogy. She died in the summer of 1189; Eleanor hadn't learned of it yet by the end of Devil's Brood but I deal with it in Lionheart. I found that I missed her; she and Eleanor played off one another so well.
Sharon - I'm about a quarter of the way in and I'm curious how historically accurate the character portrayals are? I feel like so far, there is no real "hero" or "villain" - Maude is strong and intelligent but cold and haughty while Stephen is warm and friendly but viewed as too weak and soft as a ruler. So they feel like very real, human characters, not the black and white "good vs evil" you get in a lot of other HF. I'm wondering if that's because you tried to stay true to the historical accounts of the character's personalities?
I try very hard to be as historically accurate as I can, Robin--some have called me obsessive-compulsive! If I am compelled to "fill in the blanks" or to take any historical liberties with known facts, I always mention it in my Author's Notes. I also like to discuss my reasoning and conclusions in the AN, letting the readers know why I wrote a particular scene, etc. Be forewarned, Lionheart's AN hit an all-time record, 11 pages! But my readers keep telling me that they love the AN, so I took them at their word. :-) I tried to be as true as I could to what we know of Stephen and Maude's personalities, based upon what was said in the chronicles and upon their own actions. I think my last paragraph in my AN about Saints says it all: "Maude could be infuriating and exasperatig, but she had great courage and she never lost a certain prickly integrity. As for Stephen, I think the truest verdict was one passed by a comtemporary chronicler, that 'He was a mild man, gentle and good, and did no justice.'"
I'm at a very frustrating part of the book and I've been thinking a lot about what has been perceived or written about Maude's demeanor. Could it be that as a woman it didn't matter how she acted/reacted, she was always to be criticized? In the case of the London people . . is there anything different Maude could have done that would have resulted in the people supporting her? There may be, I just don't know enough to form an opnion.
I think Maude was in a no-win situation, Sabrina. She was definitely judged by a different standard than what have been applied to a male. Behavior that would have been acceptable, even kingly, in a man was looked upon as unseemly in a woman. England in the 12th century was not ready for a female ruler and Maude would pay a high price for that. I am not saying she didn't make mistakes of her own; she certainly did. But she was handicapped from the get-go and simply couldn't overcome it.
As someone who has read some of the primary sources for the period, I think the portrayal of Maude and Stephen are very near perfect as to how I imagine them.
What I find so intriguing is that despite she was a woman fighting a very hard battle, she had staunch supporters. Did they support her because they were mad or disappointed in Stephen or did they see a potential in her that deserved their loyalty? I'd like to believe the latter. Which makes me sympathize with her.
It is impossible to say what their motives were, of course, Sabrina. But Maude did have three very capable, impressive men who were staunchly loyal to her: her half-brother Robert, the Earl of Gloucester, Brian Fitz-Count, and Miles, Earl of Hereford. Stephen did not have supporters with the comparable integrity of Robert or Brian, though I developed a certain fondness for his mercenary captain, Willem de Ypres, simply because he was such fun to write about. The bad guys often make the most interesting characters.
It's wonderful to read how other readers are discovering When Christ and All His Saints Slept. One of my favourite aspects of the whole book... actually one might say of Sharon's writing as a whole... is that nothing is ever black and white. Characters aren't pigeonholed into "goodies" and "baddies", and are often a subtle and complex mix of both, and Sharon lets us as readers draw our own conclusions. I like that. I've felt patronised by some authors who draw their characters too black and white and try to impose conclusions about them on me - I feel like the story is being dumbed down and on top of that I'm being told how I should think about people from the past, which I don't like at all.
Sharon wrote: "It is impossible to say what their motives were, of course, Sabrina. But Maude did have three very capable, impressive men who were staunchly loyal to her: her half-brother Robert, the Earl of Glo..."As much as I love Robert, to be honest, I do question his motives as to why he was loyal to his sister and whether or not those motives were as pure as just defending the right claim. He had more to gain under his sister's rule than he did Stephen's. The other two I don't know as much about.
I have thought of that myself . . . but at the same time didn't he have a lot to lose by defying Stephen? The challenge he took on was enormous. There was no guaranteed victory, lots of battles with no forseeable end, possible death. From what I'm reading he was willing to die for Maude's cause. Again, I don't know enough but was he that stifled living under Stephen's reign to turn to Maude? I just think with so much at stake, there had to be a greater cause.I am enjoying this book so much . . . and am eager to learn more about it.
Sabrina wrote: "I have thought of that myself . . . but at the same time didn't he have a lot to lose by defying Stephen? The challenge he took on was enormous. There was no guaranteed victory, lots of battles w..."I think so. He didn't move to defend Maude right away which can be interpreted either way. And even though there was no guaranteed victory, there was so much more to gain. I honestly don't know myself but I do question it and I think I lean more towards him fighting for his own motives instead of defending the right claim.
Who ever has an utterly pure motive, too? Human beings are complex creatures, and we are capable of responding to a number of different stimuli. In Robert's case, I can see a number of motives--dislike for Stephen, loyalty to his sister, self-interest, a belief that Stephen was not a good king, etc. From what we know of him, he had a geuine sense of honor, and I could see him acting on the belief that Maude's claim was the just one. But as lady Wallingford points out, he did not throw in his lot with her right away; at first he seems to have accepted Stephen's coup d'etat, however grudgingly. Self-interest rearing its head, maybe? But if he then concluded that Stephen was proving to be a bad king or if his conscience was troubled by the violation of his oath--or both--that could explain why he then switched sides and backed Maude's claim. I do believe that at some point in the struggle, he realized that Maude would never be queen, that the people would not accept her, and he then fought for the rights of her son, the future Henry II. But that is what is fun about history and historical fiction--that we get to speculate about their motives and draw our own conclusions!
Mod
Join away, Cristyn. As Misfit said, the more the merrier! I, too, am enjoying the discussion here. I have to apologize to you all, we had several out of town guests this week and I LITERALLY only got to read about 100 pages total. I am way behind, but will catch up quickly.
Mod
I am also reading watching the Borgias and reading the Borgia Bride. Just wanted to mention, Sharon, that I read The Borgias and Their Enemies: 1431-1519 by Christopher Hibbert and found it to be a pretty good factual book about the Borgias. I love watching the shows, though. Mostly because of the costuming and the overall framework. I don't really expect them to stick strictly to the facts, but it is good to have some idea where they are going astray. I like that you said that you feel writers owe a note to the readers about the fact that they have filled in blanks, Sharon. I mean, we all know that it is done in order to tell the story. I usually expect it to some degree, but it is nice to have the author acknowledge it. Makes me feel that they take me, as a reader, seriously.
As for the Borgia Bride (We have sooooo hijacked this thread, lol). I am enjoying the story that Jeanne Kalogridis is telling. My only complaint with the book is that she lists Sancha's uncle Francesco's death correctly as 1486, but has him at his father's death in 1494 AND actually has him as a key player with his brother Fernando when the French begin attacking Naples. I guess he is speaking from the grave?? It is just weird for me since it seems obvious that she knew he was dead AND that she doesn't only make the mistake at one place in the book, but at several places. And Misfit can tell you, I am usually the last one to point out an author's shortcomings or mistakes as I am usually an easy sell.
Mod
Thanks!!! I too am way behind...I haven't started yet! It took a little while to get it from the library...picking it up today! I'll have to try to put some blinders on in the next few weeks and get some reading done!! LOL!!
I've just started. I'm not well aquainted with the time period (which is exactly why I picked up this series awhile back) so it's going to be an adventure. The family tree was making my head spin. Damn, family names. I think I've got the characters (so far) straight now at about 70+ pages in, lol. I must comment on my lack of experiance for this time frame can be a blessing. Not knowing all the details allows me to read without being sensitive to author's "embelishments". That being said I specifically chose this trilogy because, having read The Sunne in Splendour, I have confidence in the author.I've just gotten to the part in When Christ and His Saints Slept when they've aquired a wimple and habit, lol.
Thalia, one of the reasons why historical fiction writers go grey before our times is that we usually have to deal with a cast of thousands, like a Cecil B. deMille movie, and then to add insult to injury, medieval people kept recycling the same family names. I must have had half a dozen Edwards and Richards and Elizabeths in Sunne; thank heaven for Francis Lovell!
The character names never really give me that much trouble, I think because I like to thoroughly read all family trees and character lists at the beginning of books when they're given. And thankfully Sharon, you always have one or the other in your books. I must admit though I am slowly getting more and more behind on this first book. I began reading it early so I could be sure to give myself enough time to finish, but now that everyone has begun, I haven't had a chance to read in over a week.
A History of Royals
Books mentioned in this topic
Queen Emma and the Vikings: A History of Power, Love, and Greed in 11th-Century England (other topics)The Ward of King Canute (other topics)
The Last Englishman - The Story of Hereward the Wake (other topics)
Lionheart (other topics)
Lionheart (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Edith Pargeter (other topics)Jeanne Kalogridis (other topics)
Christopher Hibbert (other topics)
Hi all,
Joining in to say that I also don't think for one moment the person who commented was overlooking Sharon's Eleanor - which is absolutely the gold standard. My version will, I hope, compliment Sharon's version. I'll be covering her early life first, and the viewpoint focus will be in close.
I think the comment was made in the context of certain other novels and even biographies out there that take a fairly ummm...'relaxed' view towards historical veracity. :-)