Two hundred nineteen ships. Seventeen thousand sailors and soldiers, a huge army by medieval standards. This was the royal fleet of Richard Coeur de Lion, which sailed from Messina, Sicily on Wednesday, April 10th 1191. Almost immediately the fleet was becalmed, forced to anchor off the coast of Calabria. Two days later, the storm struck. We even know the hour of the storm, the “ninth hour of the day,” or 3 PM. One reason I am deriving so much pleasure from writing Lionheart is that I have this surprisingly intimate glimpse of Richard and his world. Two chroniclers traveled to the Holy Land with Richard and sometimes their accounts read like battlefield dispatches. Here is a comment upon that savage Good Friday storm: “Then they entrusted their steering to God alone, for they believed they were beyond human aid.” We are told that Richard kept a lantern lit on the mast of his galley, a beacon for the other ships, that he was always on the lookout for stragglers, that he “looked after the fleet like a hen caring for her chicks.” And when I read their descriptions of the storms at sea, I was awed at the courage of medieval men and women, for had I been living in the twelfth century, I think it would have taken a drawn sword to get me on board a vessel that lacked adequate shelter, any navigational instruments, or comfort or privacy or safety.
This was a round-about way of announcing that Richard is finally on his way to the Holy Land. So far I am pleased with the book’s progress, mainly because the characters have come into clear focus for me. Obviously, I feel as if I know Eleanor to the marrow of her bones by now; this is my fifth book in which she appears, not counting the four mysteries. And by the end of Devil’s Brood, I thought I had a good grasp of Richard the man, not Richard the legend. But I had to acquaint myself with new characters for Lionheart, primarily Berengaria and Richard’s grown-up sister, Joanna, and they seem to be finding their own voices.
I’ve always wondered how much free will fictional characters have. I remember reading an amusing, snarky comment by Vladimir Nabokov on this subject. E.M. Forster had written that his characters sometimes took over and dictated the course of his novels. In response to this, Mr. Nabokov said that, while he didn’t blame Forster’s characters for trying to “wriggle out of that trip to India or wherever he takes them,” his own characters were “galley slaves.” Well, my characters cannot take over and deny history, as much as they’d like to. But they are not galley slaves, either. And they are capable of surprising me, which is half the fun of writing.
Speaking of galley slaves—how is that for a segue way—I found another mistake in The Reckoning. It is not as horrific or inexplicable as the bizarre crossbow-longbow episode, but as Ellen de Montfort is sailing to Wales to wed Llewelyn, there is a scene in which Hugh talks about the use of galley slaves by the Italian city-states of Genoa and Venice, claiming they manned their fleets with “infidel slaves and convicted felons.” Not so. Galley slaves were certainly used during the Roman Empire and during the Renaissance, but not in the Middle Ages, when the oarsmen were paid wages for their labor. Clearly I consulted an erroneous source back then; since it was more than twenty years ago, I can’t be more specific than that. Or else Hugh was just repeating what he’d heard in the wharf-side taverns of Harfleur. Yes, the more I think about it, I’m going to blame Hugh for this one.
I wanted to let you all know that Elizabeth Chadwick kindly interviewed me on her current blog; we’ll put up a link here, but it is always worth a trip to Elizabeth’s website. One of the questions she posed gave me a chance to elaborate upon the changes in my opinion of Richard between Here Be Dragons and Devil’s Brood. She is in the midst of doing numerous on-line interviews for the American publication of The Greatest Knight. It comes out on September 1st; mark your calendars. But I think she will probably post links to these interviews on her website, another reason to drop by.
Okay, now to the book giveaway. Janna, you’re the winner. If you e-mail me with your address, I’ll put a copy in the mail to you. And I’ll pass your questions on to St Martin’s. It will be up to them to decide which ones they want to use, but I thought they all were insightful and worthy of being included.
Several of you asked for the contact information for that wonderful hotel at Fontevrault Abbey. Here it is. Hotellerie de l’Abbaye Royale de Fontevraud, Prieure Saint Lazare, tel: 02.41.51.73.16 And here is their website URL http://www.hotelfp-fontevraud.com/ Reservations can also be made on-line via Expedia, etc. BTW, I used the older spelling for the abbey; Fontevraud is the more modern version.
I would still like to put Ken’s research directly onto a separate blog entry for that purpose. I know there is a lot of interest in his findings. He’s been away, but when he gets home, I’ll try to get his consent for that. I was corresponding recently with a member of the Princess Gwenllian Society; next month they are holding an official ceremony to name a Welsh mountain in her honor. My Welsh readers who’d like to attend can find more information on the Princess Gwenllian website, which is listed in My Favorites. My friend was very interested in our blog discussions about Joanna and Llewelyn’s children. The Society is researching the daughters of Llewelyn ap Gruffydd’s brother Davydd, who were banished to lifelong exile in English nunneries like their cousin Gwenllian.
I think I answered most of your questions already. But I do have a few comments about your comments. It is a shame there is not an award for blogs; I think we’d win in a walk, for I am sure I have the best informed readers when it comes to the MA. It is fascinating to read your responses and observations. I loved your “What if” speculations, Malcolm; those are questions I’ve often asked myself, too. I agree with you, Nicolette; as little as I like the man personally, Philippe Auguste was a highly effective king, maybe even a great one. Thank you all for giving Brenna so many helpful suggestions for her trip to Wales. As I said in an earlier comment to Malcolm, I love the way my readers look out for one another. (And the Oscar goes to….) I really liked your astute observations about Arthur, Koby. Mention was made of the story that John killed Arthur himself in a drunken rage. I never believed that myself. It didn’t sound like John’s MO to me. I think he made sure to be hundreds of miles away from Rouen when Arthur died. Granted, we do not know for a certainty that he had Arthur put to death. But I’d feel comfortable making a large wager on that. Dave, thank you for telling us about Cosmestn Medieval village in Glamorgan; I hadn’t heard about that, would love to see it one day. And as many times as I’ve been to Cricieth, I never tasted Cadwalader’s ice cream, clearly my loss. Now back to you, Koby. Since I am accusing John of murder, I might as well charge Marguerite d’Anjou with adultery; I always thought the most likely candidate for paternity was the young Duke of Somerset. Though I can’t say that I’d blame Marguerite if she did stray from Henry VI’s bed.
I just realized that I didn’t ask any questions myself in this blog. What can I end with? Well, that novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies has been on the USA Today bestseller list for twenty weeks now. So maybe I am missing an opportunity with Richard I. Forget about his sexuality. Suppose I have him come out of the closet as…drum roll here…a vampire. You think that would get Lionheart on the bestseller list for twenty weeks? Just kidding, honest. But I really do think Jane Austin is not only rolling over in her grave; she is probably spinning like a top. So here’s a real question to end this blog. I’m not sure if the Zombies book can be classified as fantasy, more like a spoof? But what do you think of including elements of the supernatural in a novel? Does it put you off? Or does it depend upon whether the book is well written or not? Lastly, as soon as I get Ken’s okay, I’ll put his research findings up on a special blog.
August 27, 2009
I can’t believe I might be the first one to comment! First, I can’t wait to read Lionheart. I know it is going to be great. I do not care for vampire books in the slightest and would never read one (except for Dracula of course). Supernatural kind of turns me off, too, and is why I didn’t read Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series until years after it was published. Since she is a good writer, I enjoyed it in spite of the time-traveling thing. You just have to suspend your disbelief and enjoy the story. (That’s what I tell my husband about movies, too. He hates anything that is unrealistic.) I do prefer historical novels by far. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction, and more enjoyable too.
Sharon,
The supernatural has a certain place and time. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Eragon, and Twilight all work for how they were written. That being said, I agree with you, Jane Austin would be horrified that she has been made into a zombie. She isn’t the only one either, several books are coming out that depict certain authors/books as these supernatural, fantasy, horror movie gone bad characters and I actually think lacks creativity. I compare this with the movie industry that apparently lacks any creativity because they have been bringing out “new” movies based on the old movies-Batman, Star Trek (although I really, really liked that one!), Star Wars, Look Whose Coming to Dinner, etc. If you can’t come up with something original, why bother?
Wow, that was quite a rant I just had. Anyway, I’m reading the second Justin mystery and it is going well. I’m combining this with the Thomas Costain books and Norman Davis “The Isles: A History.” Have you read/used these books in your research at all? Obviously they are a bit dated, but I have found some interesting information.
I made my first jaunt to my local library this past weekend and picked up around 9 books on MA England. The librarian kept a straight face, looked me straight in the eye, and asked ” Are you writing a book report for your class?” I couldn’t help but laugh and explain how I have been reading your books and now I have to somehow connect the dots between Edward I and Edward IV. Needless to say I held up the line at the libary for an additional ten minutes while the libarian gave me several other recommendations. So here is my shoutout to libraries and librarians everywhere, THANK YOU!
Thank you for Sharon for another wonderful blog-can’t wait to read Lionheart!
There’s no evidence, other than gossip, that Margaret of Anjou was unfaithful to her husband. Henry VI was sane until the seventh month of Margaret’s pregnancy and paid a handsome annuity to the man who brought him news that the queen was expecting. He and Margaret were at Greenwich together at the time Edward would have been conceived.
The “Holy Ghost” remark that Henry VI supposedly made about Edward’s paternity isn’t reported until 1461, by Prospero di Camulio, Milanese Ambassador in France, to Francesco Sforza. Camulio added, however, “but these may only be the words of common fanatics, such as they have at present in that island.” Certainly the timing of this gossip, current just a few weeks after Edward IV had taken the throne, should make us suspicious, as it did Camulio.
It’s true that it took Margaret eight years after her marriage to conceive a child, but Cecily, Duchess of York, took even longer to conceive her first child, Anne–and while people have cast doubts on Edward IV’s paternity, no one to my knowledge has ever suggested Anne was anyone other than the Duke of York’s child.
Helen Maurer in her nonfiction book on Margaret of Anjou discusses the rumors about Edward of Lancaster’s paternity, and the motives of those who propagated them, in depth.
Tearing my hair out as the computer just ate my lovely comment! Grrr!!! I hate being forced to reiterate my ramblings but I shall try.
Hurray that Richard is on his way to the Holy Land! I feel some applause is on the way … wait … yes, I did actually applaud then! I very much look forward to reading about his exploits.
I love that there is a Princess Gwenllian Society! I shall mosey on over to their website forthwith and attempt to determine whether I can trek up to this mountain’s christening and force some historically imbued fresh air upon my 2 year old boychild.
Last week my husband, myself and aforementioned boychild (asleep in his pushchair) walked past a bookshop with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies displayed shamelessly in its’ window. As an ardent Austen lover, P&P especially, I was somewhat appalled. Somewhat being a kind downplaying of my feelings. What followed was a lively discussion between my husband (a friend to science fiction, fantasy AND zombies) and I (the historically accurate lady you read before you) upon the very idea of such a book. I tend to wonder what would possess an individual to add zombies to P&P, and whether they would add to the gentlemen present at the balls, whereas my husband considered it a fine addition but hoped it wouldn’t enter the National Curriculum any time soon.
Re: Cosmeston Medieval Village (aka `The Museum of Welsh Life`) – go there! It is such a lovely place. Obviously largely open air, so try to find a dry day to wander around and give yourself a few hours to take it all in. We take our son there as it is just down the road from our new home and he loves to run around in all the open space.
You may also want to take a trip to the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff city centre as it houses Llewelyn ap Iorwerth’s seal! It’s part of their collection of medieval Welsh artefacts (some lovely stuff to look at). I was lucky enough to be shown round by the man who curated the exhibition and he said how proud they were to have something Llywelyn used so regularly on show. They do have a corner pretty much dedicated to him, actually.
Rant (take 2) over now!
Thank you for your compliments, Sharon. And to continue my habits, I will mention that Hal (or as Malcolm calls him ‘the first Henry III’) was crowned today.
I’m quite happy to hear Richard is coming to my land.
I’m already in the middle of Devil’s Brood, and loving every word of it. The arguement between Henry and Eleanor had me laughing at their sarcastic coments and weeping at the hate. I truly do think you’ve managed to hit the nail exactly on the head, Sharon, and explain why all that happened in that family happened.
I also agree with your portrayal of Hal, and I’m intrigued by Geoffrey. I’ll have to agree with those before me who said he would have been the best king out of all the sons. And he’s avery interesting character as well. In fact, I’m beggining to think of John as a lesser version of Geoffrey.
I note that William de Mandeville said the words that Joanna did to Lewellyn regarding how even her memories of John are now false. I was quite touched to read them again. But as far as I see it, Henry wasn’t able to do what Joanna had done – separate the person who did the acts. Joanna and Lewellyn did so: Joanna separated her father from the king, and Lewellyn separated John’s daughter from his wife. Eleanor said she saw herself as Duchess of Aquitaine, then Henry’s wife. But Henry apparently did not, and saw her only as his wife.
I must admit I wonder about Richard. It seems that he was the main problem. Hal was obviously discontented with what he was given – but I feel that if he was given what he was promised, he would have been fine. Geoffrey as well was content with Brittany, though he quite reasonably demanded all of it. But neither of them seem to be aggressive as Richard in the book. Geoffrey fears for his borders with Richard. Why does it seem that Richard was not satisfied with Aquitaine and wanted some of Brittany as well? I’m also going to look for the interview with Elizabeth, so I can read what you say about the change. I wondered a bit at that as well.
It’s also quite interesting to see John as a child, and realize his twisted development. I feel it gives me many insights into John in Here Be Dragons.
Well, an exhaustingly long comment, which I’m sure will keep us long in conversation. I hope people tell me their own observation, and say what they think of mine.
Oh, I’ve only one comments left: I enjoyed the continuation of fictional characters. What I mean is the fact that Ranul lives in Trefriw – where Caterin and Rhys lived, two more fictional characters. Though how they would get it is beyond me. And I also assume Morgan ap Bleddyn (Llewelyn’s chaplain) is the son of Bleddyn ap Ranulf (Gilbert Fitz Ranulf). I like the idea of all these novels connecting.
I have always enjoyed Magic Realism and Time Travel – when a book is well written and the author can handle bringing them in seamlessly into the story (I think Time Traveler’s Wife is an excellent example – the book, not the movie, as is Daphne Du Mere (sp) the Strand). The supernatural can work, I just think there has to be a reason for it; not just because its a fad
BTW, the talk of current fads reminded me of a story I just heard. I can’t remember the actress off hand, but apparently her grand daughter pushed her to see Twilight. After the movie the young girl said that the vampire in that movie was the best ever. The actress showed up at her door the next day with a DVD of the silent classic Nosferatu. No report yet on the young ladies sudden change of heart…
Beth,
I don’t want to get too picky, but St. Fagan’s, and Cosmeston are not the same. St. Fagan’s is located just off of the A4232, and Cosmeston is located just off of the B4267. But, Cosmeston looks like good fun, and is supposed to be an exact replica of a village from around the time period 1350. I’m surprised that doesn’t mean almost empty as many people were dying of the Black Death. Anyway, not trying to cause problems, just trying to get things right.
Cheers,
Dave
The mention of Diana Gabaldon above reminded me of something I meant to post but had forgotten. The Summer 2009 issue of Scottish Life has a story about Diana Gabaldon’s “Outlander Tour,” with a group that included her mother and sisters. I read the article in June, during our visit to Edinburgh.
Hey Sharon, with a moniker like Lionheart, you’d do better to make Richard a werewolf (a were-lion?) than a vampire! I can see it now — there he is, sharing a bed (and a passionate embrace) w/ Philippe, when the full moon rises and Philippe, discovering his awful secret, barely escapes with his life, and abandons the crusade. Meanwhile a lion tears through Acre, devouring infidels…
About your question, I tend to associate fantasy (and the supernatural elements that accompany it) w/ children’s literature. In that context, I think it is wonderful — I love the Harry Potter books, Tolkien, etc. I used to read a lot of that kind of thing as a child, and I’ve started reading it again now that I have children who enjoy it (when people ask me if I’ve read the Twilight series, I tell them I’ll read it when my daughter brings it home. Which it sounds like she’s planning to do fairly soon).
Adult-oriented fantasy tends to leave me a bit cold however — an orientation towards medieval fiction often leads you to a lot of Arthurian fiction, and much of that stuff has supernatural elements in it. It’s all fine and good, and many of them are good books, but given a choice between straight up history, and Merlin and magic and prophecies and all that, I’ll take straight up. Give me Helen Hollick’s Arthur over Mary Stewart’s any day! That said, there are books w/ supernatural elements that I’ve really loved — Time-Traveller’s Wife is one of my all-time favorites, and I liked Max Tivoli too. I haven’t read Outlander, but I just picked it up for 25c at a library book sale, so I’ll get to it before too long. Before I got hooked on medieval fiction, I used to read (and still enjoy) mostly science fiction, and while that’s not quite the same thing as supernatural/fantasy, there’s a lot of suspension of disbelief going on there too. So I guess my answer to your question is: it depends!
Dave – apologies, it was my mistake entirely!
I have been to both places with my family and they are both wonderful. St. Fagan’s has a Celtic village and yes, you are right about Cosmeston having a medieval village replica. A friend of mine works at Cosmeston, was taking the same Medieval courses I did last year at Cardiff University, and takes part in a great many historical re-enactments there on Bank Holidays so I should know the difference between the two places by now! She actually did a project on Cosmeston, and I found out a lot about the place thanks to her research!
I found it interesting that you seem to believe greatly in abandoned village syndrome! Whilst it’s true that many villages did “disappear” around the time of the big Black Death outbreaks, there are actually a lot of other factors that went together to cause the emptying of the land. Many village disappearances have been attributed to the Black Death outbreak of 1348-50 but the amount of places that has actual evidence to back up this theory is far fewer than you might imagine. Directly, the Black Death has been blamed for much, but I think the many indirect effects of the Black Death are the ones that changed village make-up in the long term.
Another reason for villages disappearing are religious buildings. Occasionally monastaries founded to house “new” religious orders would mean a village would be devoured by the monastery, with the inhabitants either being moved to other places or the entire village being physically transplanted by the Crown.
Anyway, back to topic, thank you for pointing that out, Dave, I wouldn’t want people getting confused due to my being tired and making mistakes!
Thanks for getting stormy Friday off to a good start with such a laugh, Suzanne. Maybe you and I ought to collaborate on a book like that–we could call it The Lion of Acre!
And I agree completely with you about Helen Hollick’s Arthur. I found him to be a compelling character, and his death scene at the end of her trilogy was heartbreaking.
While I do certainly love fantasy (personally I have no issues with reading about a supernatural Arthur, although I find it equally interesting to research the non-fiction roots of the legend), some books take the intermingling too far. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is one of these books. I objected less than I thought I would to the butchering of one of my favorite books – honestly, it’s all on good fun (although I felt that at times the author was making fun of the original book out of lack of understanding of Austen). This particular spoof just wasn’t particularly well done. I never felt as though the zombie elements were woven seamlessly into Pride and Prejudice, so the effect was jarring. I also would have enjoyed it more if the (new) author had managed to maintain the original tone of the book more, but instead he changed some of what I think are the best aspects of the original to fit tangentially with his new story. For example, he completely butchers Lizzie Bennet’s character (pun, I admit, intended).
In general, I have no problem with including supernatural elements in a novel. I love how in Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, for example, the supernatural is naturally interwoven into a seemingly identical world to ours. Even in historical fiction books I love elements of the fantastical, as long as they are done well. As odd as this may seem, I think Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “History of the King’s of Britain” is an excellent example, probably because he is relaying any supernatural elements as though they are the god’s honest truth. It’s both amusing and, I think, totally wonderful. If Geoffrey could do it, why can’t modern writers insert supernatural elements into their “histories”? As long as it is done well.
I haven’t read Hollick’s books, but I have read Cornwel”s Arthur books and find them to be quite excellent HF, even if he is talking about a legend that may or may not be true. Oh, and I do love Mary Stewart, but know her as a fantasy writer, not HF
BTW I don’t include my old fantasy/sci fi books in the same realm as magic realism. They are different. Fantasy for me is pretty much a magical realm, a genre which took great pressure off of me during my college days. MR is a method of introducing supernatural in books of other genres, including HF. As I mentioned above, it can work, but the whole zombie thing is really quite ridiculous
For a long time I was much more of a fan of science fantasy than historical fiction. For every good HF book I came across I encountered many more that suffered from the ‘Plantagenets in Pasadena’ malaise. Then I came across some authors who write books set in actual historical times (mostly ancient times) where the facts are scarce and it takes a lot of imagination to fill the gaps. Marion Zimmer Bradley, Juliet Marillier and Jules Watson all write books with a bit of history and varying degrees of the supernatural thrown in. Their books are fantastic though! I know some of you may find the thought of the survivors from the fall of Atlantis moving to England and building stonehenge by singing the stones into place inconceivable. But in the context of the story told in ‘Ancestors of Avalon’ it works. Should the book be labelled a fantasy or a history? I think it can be called both.
I have mentioned Sara Douglass in a previous blog but I think I should bring her books up again. Sara is an amazing Australian author who mostly writes Science Fantasy. Sara has a PhD in early modern English history and she lectured at a University on Medieval History. When she wrote her series ‘The Crucible’ she deliberately altered the facts but she explains this well in her authors note at the front of the book. Hal Bolingbroke is a demon. Joan of Arc sees visions of the Archangel Michael.
In the authors note Sara writes, “The three books of ‘The Crucible’ are set, not in the medieval Europe of our past, but in the medieval Europe of a parallel universe: the insertion of even one fictional character amongst a host of historical characters necessarily creates that parallel world…..’The Crucible’ presents an explanation couched in a medieval understanding of the world rather than in terms more familiar to our modern sensibilities.” I think Sara’s books are great, but you have to be able to switch off that little voice in your head which keeps telling you the facts have been messed with. But I felt like I was really in the medieval world when I was reading the books. If you ignore the factual stuff the writing about the locations, sights, sounds, thoughts and feelings is amazing.
I just finished Elizabeth Chadwicks ‘Shields of Pride’. There is a supernatural occurence in the book and it fits in really well. Wonderful book!
Nicolette and Sharon, I am glad you both agree with me about Philippe Auguste’s greatness. I have no doubt that, were he here, Philippe would agree with us as well.
Suzanne,
talking about Arthurian fiction I came across Jack Whyte’s “The Skystone” years ago, the first in a seires of nine books. It starts with the Romans in Britain and the ancestors of Arthur and ends with Lancelot (sort of). No magic there but as much facts as can be found and convincing. When I’m in Great Britain I try to visit places that are in the books (as Sharon and Wales). One spectacular place is the Roman fort at Hard Knot Pass in the Lake District. I just love these books and have read them many times.
I’m not much for zombies and supernatural things, but I like Time Traveller’s Wife too.
Hi Sharon. Just (finally) finished Devil’s Brood. Wonderful, of course. One question I have, and I don’t know if there is an answer or if it will be in Lionheart – does Constance ever come to terms with her new husband?
On the topic of Arthurian fiction, I can add my 2 cents. Love the Mary Stewart quartet. Jack Whyte is also good, but I couldn’t get through the Lancelot book. Too serious. Persia Woolley wrote a great series from Guinevere’s point of view. I really enjoy a strong Guinevere. Hated Mists of Avalon because of that. I guess that’s why I love Eleanor!
I personally dont like SF, and can only tolerate certain supernatural ocurrences in a book, specially in a HF novel. I really like my book as real as possible in regards to the MA era. For instance I recently read The Crown Rose by Fiona Avery about Princess Isabelle, sister to Louis IX, King of France. One of the main characters in this book is The Order of the Rose of whom its members seem to be Maria Magdalene’s kids (mostly a French Legend???). I quote–“…readers probably won’t be surprised to learn that they have been deeply drawn into yet another fantasy based on the legend of the Holy Grail.” It was a good HF fantasy novel in which i did have to put aside some of “logical thinking” and transport myself to a medieval world in which most people believed in mystical supernatural happenings, far more than in our current modern times. In short, I can tolerate fantasy or supernatural occurences depending on the writer and how it connects to the story.
Sharon–It is exciting to hear about your progress with the book on Richard, “my” Coeur di Leon =) Definately one of my favorite Crusaders and Great Soldier of its time. But mostly i really want to get to know more of the man he was than the Great Soldier who became a legend.
It was hilarious to read your blog-line: “Or else Hugh was just repeating what he’d heard in the wharf-side taverns of Harfleur. Yes, the more I think about it, I’m going to blame Hugh for this one.” LOL~~I want to say “Hugh, dont you know better than believing and repeating tavern gossip” ha-ha poor Hugh! But I agree with you, lets just blame it on him (wink)
And last, i am looking forward to read The Greatest Knight by Elizabeth Chadwick. I already know I will love the book and would love to see that justice is made to a most Loyal Man to the Crown and to Eleonor of Aquitane!
No, Sue, it proved to be a very unhappy marriage for both parties. Constance had one advantage over many reluctant wives, though, as she had her own domains and didn’t have to live with the Earl of Chester. She had the backing, too, of her own Breton barons, who despised English intruders. She actually ended up imprisoned by her husband, though he apparently did this at Richard’s bidding. Richard seemed to be seriously considering naming Arthur as his heir after he was freed, but Constance and the Bretons made a great mistake in my opinion and refused to take Arthur to Richard’s court. So Constance ended up a prisoner–a bargaining chip? The Bretons smuggled Arthur to the French court, and that ended any chance of his becoming King of England. I am happy to report, though, that after Constance and Chester divorced, she made another marriage to an Anglo-Norman lord, and this seems to have been a happy marriage. Sadly, it didn’t last long, as she died not long afterward. But then by dying when she did, she was spared knowing the fate of her children with Geoffrey; she never knew that Arthur was most likely murdered by his not-so-loving uncle and his sister was held in gilded captivity for forty years.
I’m fascinated by the comments about fantasy and supernatural elements in historical fiction. I had no idea it would spur such an interesting discussion.
I like fantasy on television, i’m definitely a Dr. Who fan, but it has no place being mixed in with historical fiction, or great classics like P&P.
Every genre has its place. Although I read far less of it these days, good fantasy can be as enjoyable as good historical fiction. Where I have difficulties is when authors get caught up in trying to create a new genre by combining others (imagine what would have happened if John had a Merlin at his disposal).
One book that recently really bothered me was Alison Weir’s The Lady Elizabeth in which she has Elizabeth miscarry. Not only do I strongly doubt Elizabeth ever conceived, but Weir herself states she doesn’t believe it happened. Perhaps that lack of conviction came through in the writing.
Speaking of Ms Weir, her next book will be a novel on Henry and Eleanor. Should make for some interesting comparisons.
Everyone has been talking about such interesting sounding books, but only mentioning the author 🙂 Are there any specific books that you recommend?
I have a question for you, Dave. How do you feel about books that incorporate supernatural elements into modern stories, of which there are lots (Harry Potter, of course, springs to mind but there are lots of other examples). How is it any different, really, when an author decides to set a “magical” story in the past? I feel that as soon as there are any supernatural elements the story is clearly no longer straight historical fiction: it is a novel set in a real time and place, with real historical figures, and the author has decided to expand upon the pre-existing story. I don’t think that any author of Arthurian fantasy would say that all those things actually happened and they are writing honest historical fiction, but what’s wrong with creating something more out of what we have?
Hilary,
In response to your question. I actually really enjoyed Harry Potter. I’ve read all seven books. And, supernatural stories set in the past are ok also. It’s when people start messing with set historical events that I no longer care for a book. It would be like Richard defeating Henry because he had a Dalek in his army(sorry, I was watching Dr. Who tonight). Now as for the second part of what you asked, there is nothing wrong with creating something more out of what we have. I’ll use Sharon as an example. Ranulf. It is a historical fact that Henry I, sired more than 20 Illegitimate children, and making a name for one of them, and sticking them in a story is fine. Until anyone can prove that he(Henry I) didn’t have a child named Ranulf, I’m perfectly fine with it. Plus, being of Welsh descent myself, I’m kind of partial to Ranulf, and Rhiannon. I’m sure my ancestor Owen Owens would agree. Hopefully, I’ve satisfactorily answered your questions. If not please ask again.
Iechyd da,
Dave.
I hadn’t heard of the zombie book but poor Jane… although she might have thought it all a bit of a giggle, she had a wicked sense of humour.
I do like a bit of supernatural but I do draw the line at zombies. Ghosts and the old beliefs (that we have yet to shake off entirely…) are fine by me. One of my favourite TV series was ‘Robin of Sherwood’ and that includes a huge dose of supernatural and myth explained away by the writer as Medieval man being supersticious. A lot of supersticions were perpetuated by medieval man through art and scultpure – take a good look at any cathedral to see the carvings of of fantastical creatures and figures like the Green Man) so it was not so far out to sprinkle the Robin Hood legend with a bit more. So saying, adding to the Arthur and John ‘did he, didn’t he’ debate, there was a good epsiode from the extremely dodgey last series of ‘RoS’ that concerns that very subject. They came down on the yes he did side of things in a twist to the plot at the very end.
I also like the books of Barbara Erskine and although I admit that she now appears to be writing the same plot just with a different set of characters, she uses the supernatural as a device to connect her modern characters with historical ones, to good effect in her first four or five novels. The first three would be of interest to everyone here. I don’t really mean to criticise her, her short stories are heavenly.
No, that’s a very good explanation Dave. And I agree, I love Ranulf’s story as well.
THere was an earlier comment that said something along the lines of sci-fi has no place in classics or historical fiction – totally agree with that and I am a huge Jane Austen fan – as is my daughter (English major on her way to college) – but while she loved the Zombies book – I hated it. Certain canon should not be messed with. But I also have to say it’s hard sometimes to draw the line… Helen Hollick’s Arthur was ceratinly a more “real” person than Mary Stewart’s… but I loved both series. Maybe it’s subjective (as most things are) – but I would have trouble if you or anyone else turned Richard into anything resembling a were wolf or vampire! And I must say I’m so excited he’s on his way to the Holy Land!!!!
I’ll finish by saying that in my opinion, when a story such as the Legend of King Arthur has been told 1000 times, it’s great when an author twists the plot and includes unusual elements or perspectives. But for me certain themes should not be toyed with…for example I had a huge problem with the whole Star Trek re-make – thatt’s an area where canon should not be messed with. Yes… I admit – I’m a huge Trekkie – well TOS and TNG …bringing me back to the point of it being about personal preferences and each story line is different. I also can quote chapter and verse from Lord of the Rings and if someone were to change Frodo into a vampire – I’d lose it! Sorry for the long post….
Just my two cents worth on fantasy in print. I too prefer my fantasy, or supernatural, on the television/movie screen rather than in books. Some mentioned the frequency with which it appears in juvenile fiction and for a good reason- that is an age which delights in fantasy. Now myself, much much older, I find that history has become a sort of fantasy, albeit a time that certainly existed. As adolescents might see themselves, their ambitions and their futures as having fantastic or supernatural possibilities I see those same things as having roots in our history. Make sense? ah well it wouldn’t be the first time!Speaking of fantasy however, I have a specific fantasy just now after reading all of your books in the past few months. Sharon is there any slight chance I could convince you to write a fact based, historical novel about a couple that lives HAPPILY EVER AFTER! I wept miserably through the failures, unrequited loves and eventual deaths of so many (alright I sobbed through the betrayal of Henry’s son John and his [Henry’s] death, Llewelyn ap Gruffyd’s death in the snow too). I was distraught over the flawed familial relationships-BROTHERS!!! Could they not guess where their jealousies would take them?- damn fools all of them! I got so angry with the limitations the culture imposed and furious with the miscarriages of justice that apparently haunted all of our histories- that blasted Edward . . . Longshanks! yep I knew I’d seen that bastard before . . . “Braveheart”.
Sharon, just one innocent little medieval story where everyone lives happily ever after? Ah well, I suppose I can always read Nicholas Sparks . . .
I have to say that I think that Here Be Dragons ended quite well. Joanna and Llewelyn had their ‘happily ever after’. And Eleanor got what she wanted out of her life.
Please don’t mention ‘Braveheart’ and ‘History’ in the same sentance! that film really wound me up.
I have to say that I remember writing in my book review of Sunne at school when I was I think fifteen, about how annoyed I was that we were introduced to Edmund on a bridge near the beginning, made to like him and then had to suffer his death on the next page. Dreadfully unfair!
Hi, Rachel. You’re not trying to make me feel guilty, are you? Actually I agree with Koby–Dragons had a happy ending. Of course then I had to go and spoil it by writing Shadow. But think how depressing it is for me to have to write all these death scenes. I have to kill off characters I really care about, like Richard III, and don’t get to kill off the ones I’d love to do in, like Henry Tudor. Where is the fairness in that? On a more serious note, I really do try to offer my readers a glimmer or two of hope. For example, The Reckoning has probably the bleakest ending of any of my books, for it dealt not just with the death of Llewelyn ap Gruffydd, but with the loss of a country’s independence and–for many years–its identity. So to ease the pain a bit, I created Hugh and Caitlin, so that at least there’d be someone left alive at the book’s end. But I tried to stay true to the MA, in that they would not have been able to be together if not for Llewelyn’s death. It was only after she plummeted from a Welsh prince’s niece to a refugee that she could wed an English knight.
Nicolette, I don’t dare let you get me started on Braveheart! I could probably have dealt with it more calmly if Mel Gibson hadn’t insisted on its historical accuracy. Same for Kingdom of Heaven. But I’ll save all that for a day when I’m in the mood for a good, long rant! And for what it’s worth, I felt terrible about killing Edmund on that bridge. This was the first time I’d killed a character, after all. But that scene on the bridge gave me an insight I would use in other books–showing how secondary characters were affected by dramatic events. To the soldiers, Clifford’s brutal act cost them a large ransom, and they didn’t like losing it one bit.
I would support anyone’s rants on Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven, especially yours, Sharon! But I know what you could do. I think I heard hints you’re going to write about Balian d’Ibelin after Lionheart. So in your Author’s Note for it, speak of how you wanted to ‘correct the misconception caused by recent popular culture’ or some such thing.
No guilt, all was said tongue in cheek! I loved Llewelyn and Joanna and was glad Llewelyn was long in his grave when his grandsons enmity left Wales bereft and vulnerable. I didn’t give Braveheart the attention I have other would-be historical epics, I think I was undergoing chemo after that came out, however I do remember there were challenges regarding it’s veracity. I was merely remembering that Edward was portrayed as quite evil in nature! I apologize if I struck a sour chord with the aforementioned film-now not to be referred to again by me!!
Something that I was reminded of when dwelling on the twisted nature of Edward Longshanks is how when reading of Simon de Montfort’s campaign to reform and rein in the monarchy I was struck with the irony of it’s unintended effect on Edward. While cheering at Simon’s successes and weeping at the great losses I can’t help but think how different things might have turned out had de Montfort been able to influence Edward. Sure that’s not an epiphany to any readers here I know. I really did though, enjoy teasing out the threads of influence, nature, circumstances and birth that made Edward who he was in the end. Had he not been the son of a weak and indulgent parent might he have had the self discipline and confidence to become a stable man? For as much as his life was a reaction to the Simon de Montforts of his world his behaviours just as likely resulted from resolve to never be seen as his father’s son. And what of de Montfort and his “provisions” for a better England? Had they not existed would Edward have been as attentive to his throne or would he have continued as the debauched, spoiled son of the crown, interested more in his own pleasures than the domains of the realm?
Anyway, it was all fascinating reading and speculation! I’ve raised six of my own and several other’s children from time to time and I’m as intrigued as ever watching how certain influences seem to shape one child while rolling of another’s back like water off a duck. A minor setback to one kid is almost a death blow to another sibling!!
Alas I’ve said nothing new, pardon my speculations! What does bear repeating is that the skill and mastery over her medium that Sharon possesses has made me a fan for life! I read through each of Sharon’s books page by exhilirating page ending with the Llewelyns and The Reckoning. My sorrow at turning the last page of the last book was as much for myself as it was for Wales! Having consumed the feast I’m left half starved for another morsel!!
Shakespeare used the supernatural to enhance a few of his plays. If he can do it…..why not, Sharon. Also, I loved the Outlander series. I see the time travel element as a means to link the subject of the stories; how would 20th century knowledge effect 18th century people? Someone mentioned Barbara Erskine. I read the _The Lady of Hay_ and feel the same theory applies. If you have to use some fantasy to connect or compare two distinct eras, and can do it well, why not?
Sharon, have you ever thought of writing a book for children? Maybe a biography of Eleanor or Richard LH to whet their historical appetite, or an action type book about Richard written from a child’s perspective? Kids today deserve a whole lot better than they’re getting. You could probably dash one off in a few hours since you have already done the research. Today’s children deserve something well written.
I’ve advanced quite a bit hrough Devil’s Brood, almost to Hal’s death scene. I think you’re portraying them excellently, Sharon, and I love it. I’ve tried to explain why they have such problems, and I’ve found two main problems:
Henry’s blindness to emotion and unwillingness to share power. He doesn’t understand his sons.
Richard’s ‘excess of zeal’, and lack of diplomacy. He seems quite agressive – otherwise, why would Geoffrey fear for his borders even before the rebellion?
So I think that’s the main problem. Any thoughts?
Sharon,
I just finished Thomas Costain’s The Conquering Family and I had a few questions. In this book, he covers quite a bit of the same territory that you wrote about in your Eleanor/Henry Trilogy, but there are some striking differences that I noticed. First, Thomas claims (with some sketchy evidence) that Maude loved Stephen and therefore acted more like a woman scorned than a woman who felt she had the right to the English throne. Overall, his portrayl of Maude is unflattering at best. He portrays her as an ego-maniac who was determined to win Stephen’s heart one way or the other. He even goes so far to suggest that Henry II was actually Stephen’s son and not Geoffrey’s. When you were doing your research for “When Christ and His Saints Slept,” did you come across these claims? I’m thinking if you did, you dismissed them since they do not appear in your books. Do you think it could possibly be that Maude was interested in Stephen and that they led her to imprison him rather than kill him?
Further in his book, Costain also claims that Henry II carried on an affair with Richard’s Alyse, which since we’ve already discussed this in length, I’ll move on. Henry II must have been quite busy, because apparently he had a son, William with Rosamund. But Devil’s Brood, you are led to believe Rosamund is barron. Am I getting my stories mixed up? I’m curious because I’m reading the second Justin mystery and William appears as John’s half-brother. If Rosamund is not William’s mother, who is?
Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions!
Sharon,
Can you give me your opinion on Eleanor and her uncle Raymond of Antioch?
I have just finished Devil’s Brood and I absolutely loved it as I loved your other books that I have read. For last two years I have been your big fan.
I am now reading Alison Weir’s Eleanor and I am not quite sure what to think. She explains the circumstances, tough I feel as Eleanor is beeing judged. From reading her book I can not make my mind up. Although I do not think that we we ever be able to know for certain.
Good day to everyone.
I have to disagree with ” Certain canon should not be messed with”. First, I’d challenge anyone to come up with a definition of ‘canon’ that is not just books that you like. The ‘canon’ as we know it – ,written for the most part by old white men – are just books picked to be taught in schools. Yes these may be classics, but that doesn’t make tham santocanct (sp). Shakespeare after all borrowed greatly from writings before his time and changed them, including the supernatural in them as well! While I don’t like my fav books messed with, I also love reading twists of old stories. Gregory Maguire wrote Wicked, a take on Baum’s Wizard of Oz, as well as Ugly Stepsister, a take on Cinderella, and Mirror Mirror a take on Snow White. All marvelous looks at those classics. I am late for work, but if I think about it I can come up with many more examples that made the classics even better (tho I have to admit I draw the line at Zombies and Jane Austen. But who am I to say?)
Off topic, but I am also a trekkie and both my DH and I absolutely loved the new Star Trek. Go figure 🙂
Fantasy in HF can work I think – I just finished reading Company of Liars, a book that has a great deal of the supernatural included. But history itself isn’t messed with – which makes it work for me.
the death of (Edmund) was A Bit quick, in Sunne But?Even Going Back too His Grandfather,”Is so Fasinating” What could Have Been-Etc,Etc,(John O Gaunt) However”Just as Hagred Said Too Harry Potter”This Happens Every 14 yrs or so??? Another Book Anyone In 14 yrs?? Anyway Id Love Sharons version of John o gaunt A Pre=Sunne in Splendour, But Then Again I do Digress. Also Star- treck Was Great?? james
Brenna, I read Costain’s books on the Plantagenets quite a while ago, and while I found them entertaining and interesting, I recall there were quite a few places where he seemed to have gotten the history wrong (I don’t remember what they were, but there was one about the timing of the affair w/ Rosamund that just didn’t seem right).
It’s also been a while since I wrote the Justin mysteries, so I don’t know exactly who you are talking about, but I assume that William is William Longsword, later Earl of Salisbury, one of the few men that John trusted and was close to. I don’t recall who his mother was, but I believe she way predates Rosamund. Actually, I just googled it, and his mother was Countess Ida de Tosny, who later married Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk.
Oh, and I also agree w/ Cindy that there’s no intrinsic harm in “messing with canon”. Art is about being creative, and often appropriates what is familiar and then “messes with it” to give it a new and original twist, in the hopes of connecting w/ the audience in a way that is both familiar to them and thought-provoking. Of course, some huge fraction of art is junk, and just because a writer writes something, it doesn’t mean we have to read and/or approve of it (and we all have our own personal preferences as well). But good stuff will shine through.
Truth in advertising is another matter — there’s only so far you could go in adding supernatural elements to work like Sharon’s, and still call it historical fiction. But I don’t think that P&P&Zombies is pretending to be anything other than what it is: you know already from the title that it’s going to be off-the-wall, it’s going to mess w/ canon, and it’s going to have zombies! That gives me enough info right off the bat to know that I’m not interested in reading it, but obviously other people have responded differently!
One more thing — for Ellie: there are already a couple of children’s novels out there about Eleanor. There’s one in the Princess Diaries series (which I haven’t read further than the back cover), and there’s E.L.Konigsburg’s book _A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver_, which my daughter’s 7th grade class read and studied last year, prompting several enjoyable conversations between the two of us!
Jane Austen will really start spinning in her grave when she sees Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. Why can’t they do this to Charles Dickens or one of the Brontes?
Also, I like paranormal in some instances but not normally in my historical fiction. Although, I did love Doomsday Book by Connie Willis. This blended science fiction with history very well. It is one of my all time favorite books. But this is more science fiction (time travel) with history.
I’m not altogether comfortable with authors messing with someone else’s books – smacks of cheating. The Brontes and Dickens have already toyed with the supernatural themselves so there is less mileage in fiddling with them, but no doubt someone will eventually.
‘Canon’ should be challenged, but I do disagree with the ‘old white men’ bit – I can think of a couple of ‘old white men’ who still lead the reading lists whose books were written a long time ago and have still yet to be improved upon. However, knowledge does evolve, History is not a dead subject, only the protaganists are dead in the era we are interested in. Documents come to light or are re-translated, or a different point of view takes hold. And different cultures / nationalities have different truths. The accepted versions of the Battle of Hastings change as soon as you cross the channel, and John is seen in a far worse light in France than here in the UK – we know him as King John, over there he is known commonly as Lackland, ‘Jean Sans Terre’.
Until Sharon writes about it, the best fiction to read on John of Gaunt is ‘Katherine’ by Anya Seton. Long, not as gripping as Sharon but good nonetheless. For those in the dark, Katherine was John’s mistress and eventual wife. It is a good story.
Hi, Everyone. I am taking a brief Cyprus break to respond to some of your questions. Ellie, I have no interest in writing a book for children; I think it takes a different set of skills, ones I lack.
Brenna, Thomas Costain was not a historian. He was a journalist who became a successful novelist rather late in life. The four book “history” that he did about the Plantagenets was a labor of love on his part and I don’t want to be too harsh on these books, for I am sure they stirred a love of medieval history in many readers. But you cannot rely upon them for a factual history; Suzanne is quite correct about that. No historian believes that Stephen and Maude had a love affair, much less that Henry was the offspring of that liaison. Some centuries after all the participants were dead, this rumor surfaced and some historians think it came from a misreading of the peace struck between Stephen and Henry, in which Henry was to succeed to the throne after Stephen’s death; if my memory serves, there was language about treating Henry as a son or words to that effect–but don’t quote me on that! I think that Stephen and Maude were on friendly terms prior to his seizure of the crown; Stephen generally got along well with everyone. This lack of animosity probably contributed to her sense of betrayal when he usurped her throne. But I do not think she ever had romantic feelings for him, and this was not the reason for not putting Stephen to death. Even if Maude had been inclined to do that, her brother Robert and the other barons would never have agreed.
Moving on to Rosamund Clifford, I am convinced she was barren. Occasionally you’ll come across an old history like Costain’s that claims she was the mother of two of Henry’s illegitmate sons, Geoffrey and Will Longsword. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that theory, though. We know the name of Geoffrey’s mother; Walter Map, who detested Geoffrey, rather nastily claimed she was a whore, but there is no evidence of that either, and certainly Henry had no doubts that Geoffrey was his son. Suzanne is correct again; Ida de Tosney is the mother of Will Longsword. What is fascinating about this is it is newly discovered knowledge. At the time I wrote Dragons, no one had a clue as to the identity of Will’s mother. I love it when these nuggets of history turn up unexpectedly! Ida did indeed wed Roger Bigod after her affair with Henry, and Elizabeth Chadwick has written a novel about their lives, called A Time of Singing.
Lucia, I really can’t get into the issue of Eleanor and her uncle Raymond of Antioch too thoroughly right now; Richard is demanding that I send him to the rescue of his sister and betrothed, who are marooned off the coast of Cyprus. But briefly I will say that I was always skeptical of this charge. In her bio. of Eleanor, Alison Weir slams other biographers for presenting speculation as fact, and then she turns around and does the very same thing about Raymond and Eleanor. She admits that Raymond was “reputedly faithful to his wife and no womanizer,” but she still concludes that Louis had justification for fearing Raymond was exercising a “subversive influence” over Eleanor, and expresses her surprise that other biographers of Eleanor don’t think she committed incest and adultery with Raymond. See the recent biography of Eleanor by the British historian Ralph Turner for an insightful discussion of the “Antioch incident” which makes a convincing argument (at least to me!) that in the eyes of Eleanor’s male contemporaries, her “violation of the laws of marriage was not adultery with Raymond, nor her demand for an annulment of her marriage so much as her refusal to adopt the subservient role expected of a wife.” He points out that clerical authors of the 12th century believed that only men were capable of rational behavior and thought and they consistently attributed women’s actions “to irrational, passionate motives, not to practical political considerations.” This is true not only of Eleanor, but of her medieval sisters.
Well, that didn’t turn out as brief as I expected it would. Koby, I’ll get back to your question about DB in my next comment. If I don’t let Richard leave Rhodes tonight, I’ll never get any peace.
Not sure if I missed this in anyone’s notes above, but I thought I’d mention Ariana Franklin’s Mistress Of The Art Of Death series. Far be it from me to plug another author on Sharon’s website–LOL–but I use her latest book in the series, called GRAVE GOODS here in North America (but something else in the UK I believe) as an example of a good mix of mild supernatural elements with the historical.
It deals with Arthurian tradition from historical point of view and without letting slip the details, there is a touch of magic so subtle there that one could easily dismiss it as in the character’s imagination. In effect, magic is as real in it as faith, equally believable, equally deniable. Deftly done.
Sharon, are you a fan of Adelia Aguilar, Henry II’s speaker for the dead?
Dear Blair,
No, I am not. I think her books are very well written. But I am not comfortable when writers use real people and fictionalize them beyond recognition. I gave AF a quote for her first mystery, and I thought her characterization of Henry was right on target, so I was williing to overlook the fact that she had Henry roaming about England at a time when he was most definitely not there. But in her second book, she has Rosamund Clifford die in 1172, when Rosamund died in 1176, and that is taking too much “artistic license” for me.” I was also uncomfortable with some surprising historical inaccuracies in her first novel, surprising because I’d been told AF has written historical novels as well as the mysteries. But I realize that what troubles one reader is not going to bother another,for we all set different threshholds when it comes to historical accuracy. And in fairness to AF, let me repeat that I thought her Henry in the first mystery was pitch perfect, and given what a complex, contradictory man he was in so many ways, that is praise,indeed.
Chadwick’s book on Roger and Ida, Time of Singing, really is fabulous.
I had no idea that Costain was not a historian! Whats funny tho, is I read your books way before I discovered Costains four volume. I was finding so much that dovetailed beautifully, that I probably missed all the weird or inaccurate stuff. Very interesting. (never cared for his non fiction, tho I do have Below the Salt on my TBR shelf and will probably get to it one of these days).
Sharon,
Thank you for setting me straight. I also did not know that Costain wasn’t writing as an historian but rather as a journalist. The language you mentioned was Henry calling Stephen “my father” when they met to discuss peace terms. Although I now know Costain’s books may not accurately represent certain figures or ways of life, I still feel the need to connect the dots between Edward I and Richard III so I’ll continue on. If there are other books I should try instead, I would love any recommendations. I have Anya Seton’s on my Amazon shopping list and I just now received A Place Beyond Courage (my first Elizabeth Chadwick book). Thanks again Sharon!
AFAIC, there’s nothing wrong with including supernatural elements in a story, as long as it’s understood that doing so makes the story fantasy. Yarbro’s St. Germain novels are a good example — there’s no question that she’s writing historical fantasy rather than historical fiction, despite her attention to period detail. I could imagine, though, the line between the two becoming blurred if the author him/herself actually believed in the supernatural.
There’s room for ambiguity, though. If a POV character believes in the supernatural, and interprets some experience in supernatural terms, then the author could leave it up to the reader to decide whether the character really had gone through the experience or only thought they had — did an angel really guide Henri back to his village, or was lack of food causing him to hallucinate?
Sharon,
What a great blog post as usual. I love reading about Richard’s progress. It really is time overdue that we had a great historical novel that gets to grips with the Lionheart and I’m so pleased you’re the one to have picked up his gauntlet!
Supernatural in historical novels: It depends how it is written. If an author writing about real people, has a character whistle up a storm and the storm actually happens with a major effect on history, it’s a step too far for me the reader. It destroys my belief. If the novel started out as a historical/fantasy crossover, then I’d be more accepting, but if it purports to be biographical fiction then no way. I don’t mind the occasional ghost or intution in such works because everyone has either seen/sensed/heard such things or knows of someone who has, so as long as it’s not overcooked, I can cope with it. I love the supernatural element in Judith Merkle Riley’s trilogy A Vision of Light, In Pursuit of the Green Lion and The Water Devil. But it’s not biographical and the presence of Margaret’s dead mother-in-law in her marriage makes for great humour in the middle novel.
Sharon, I have to agree with you re the Ariana Franklin. I have loved some of the author’s straight historical fiction, but for me The Death Maze (Serpent’s Tale) was a step too far. In historical fact the victim wasn’t dead, one of the suspects was in Anjou at the time, as was Henry II. Hearing an abbot call Eleanor of Aquitaine ‘Nelly’ made my eyes boggle, as did a particularly astonishing scene portraying Rosamund and Eleanor in the same tower on a frozen winter’s day. The quote from the Historical Novel Society Conference kept coming back to me: ‘Do not defame the dead.’ It will be a long time before I am able to visit another AF novel – although I have so loved her work as Diana Norman and I do think the AF books are great page turners. Readers for whom historical accuracy isn’t an issue will find them terrific reads. Perhaps I shouldn’t be saying this. Perhaps I should keep my mouth stitched shut, but I am a reader as well as a writer and I love well written historical fiction that stays true to its time, doesn’t warp the history beyond the fair and plausible and still provides a strong page-turning story for a modern audience.
John and Arthur. Yes, I think John did it, and I would put him at the scene, but who’s going to say after all these centuries… just as long as it wasn’t a full moon 😉
Wishing Richard continued Bon Voyage!
Sharon,
Thank you for your answer to my question.
I will certainly get Ralph Turner’s book that you recommended.
Good luck with Richard. I CAN NOT wait when it comes out!.
I have to say thank you to Elizabeth Chadwick for her view on the John Arthur event. I have always fallen on the side of yes he did it and was beginning to feel in the minority! The opinion of the acedemics that I have come across refused to rule it out which for me gave enough leaway to believe the Margam annalist whose patron was none other than de Braose who was reportedly present when John killed Arthur. The Angevins were known for their temper and for me it sits with a frustrated John lashing out where he could and solving his own problem. I like John, always have, but he was no saint and it is a joy that his little quirks have passed down to us as well as his misdemeanors.
A question for Sharon – when you are writing, do you get emotional about your characters and what happens to them? Have you ever done a J.K. Rowling and burst into tears after killing a favoured character?
Hi Sharon and all!
I’m currently in Montpellier on my way back to Cornwall, arriving on the 03 Sept. Have had no access to the Internet, which has just about driven me wild – what did we do before it was invented?
Have not had time – I’ve got a limited amount of time on this Wi-Fi – to read all of your latest blogs and the comments. I will do that when I get home. However, I saw that you would like to place my findings on Gwladus and Susanna ferch Llywelyn on a special blog. I’m really flattered that you would think to do that and I look forward to receiving lots of comments. It would be good if you presented it as a paper for others to comment on and/or disagree with!
As I have said previously, although I have convinced myself as to their mother’s identity, genealogical research is not an exact science and it is therefore difficult to ‘prove’ any one theory. I therefore look forward to having an interesting debate with some of your fans who are perhaps more knowledgeable than I!!
Can’t wait to get back on to my home computer and internet access!
Sharon,
Thanks for filling me in on Constance, way back up there! I liked her in Brood. At least she did get some peace later.
The supernatural – I agree it doesn’t belong in HF if it changes the course of history. I do disagree that Mary Stewart uses it, though. Merlin’s gift of prophecy wasn’t really supernatural, but rather just a gift of sight. Others saw it as magic, but he never felt it that way.
I have to check out GRAVE GOODS. I’m always looking for new Arthurian fiction. Like someone said back there, all these stories are great when an author presents them with a new twist, sometimes because of new historical evidence.
EC said: It will be a long time before I am able to visit another AF novel – although I have so loved her work as Diana Norman and I do think the AF books are great page turners
Huh, I had no idea the two names were the same author! I just finished Norman’s Morning Gift, and found it quite excellent. I think I tried to read a AF book but couldn’t get into it. Interesting (funny how an author can do that: Ruth Rendell is another, a mystery writer generally, a genre I don’t usually read. But when she is Barbara Vine, its a psychological thriller which is right up my alley!)
Sue, I’d suggest that the gift of sight is supernatural. The term isn’t negative in any way, its just a term to show something that is not usual in nature. But thats just me. And I do think Mary Stewart uses it quite a bit, with very good results!
On the John/Arthur debate, I think John was present when Arthur was killed, but I haven’t yet convinced myself that he was the one that “pulled the trigger” so to speak. I think he had an Angevin temper and it got the best of him, but I’m not sure he didn’t feel a lasting guilt for his crime. I would like to think that he had some redeeming qualities, and guilt for killing a ‘child’ is among them.
Hi, Brenna,
But you have to remember that by medieval standards, Arthur was not a “child.” He was sixteen, and he’d been captured besieging his own grandmother at Mirebeau! So I don’t think the widespread condemnation John received had anything to do with Arthur’s age. It was their blood ties, for one; even the very ruthless Henry I didn’t have his brother and rival Robert killed,imprisoning him instead for many years. And it was the circumstances of Arthur’s death, too. And probably many people shared the opinion that would later be voiced by Tallyrand about a rash act of Napoleon’s: “It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.” I’d just commented on this subject earlier today to EC, saying I couldn’t think of any biographer of John who thinks he is innocent of Arthur’s death. Has anyone ever read one?
Thanks Sharon, and Elizabeth, for weighing in on Ariana Franklin’s mysteries and very promptly!
No denying that she takes historical liberties, compressing dates and moving things around; in her defence, she admits as much in her afterwords. I would agree on that level certainly, but I do think she produces a unique view of the 12th century.
LOL… I would never call Queen Eleanor “Nelly”!!! But then, I’ve seen historical novels refer to King Richard as “Dick” too LOL…
Well actually, Sharon, Elizabeth herself brings John across as rather innocent; in The Scarlet Lion, Philip uses some hired men to blind and geld Arthur, and John kills him out of (possibly?) mercy when de Braose discovers it. I could actually easily see Philip arranging for Arthur to be killed if I did not feel Philip would gain a greater advantage from Arthur alive than dead. Indeed, if we mention that, I quite agree with your portrayal of Philip in Devil’s Brood; I never saw him as more than a calculating, emotionally cold man.
I was going to mention William Longsword, but it’s already been mentioned; suffice to say, I understand why you retconned his birth, and why you put his birth earlier before.
Hi, Koby,
I wanted to respond to your earlier comments about DB. I am in agreement with you about Henry. It is so sad that such a brilliant man could be so woefully blind when it came to his own family. I used to wish I could have grabbed Stephen and Maude and given them a good shaking at times. With Henry, I wanted to hit him in the head with a mallet.
Your comment about Geoffrey vs Richard was interesting. I am sure Geoffrey did not trust Richard at all; they seem to have had a contentious relationship since childhood; maybe because they were so close in age? Any parents out there want to comment on that? But Richard didn’t trust Geoffrey, either, and he could have pointed out–in all honesty–that Geoffrey was the one who twice led an army into his lands without provocation. But in the scenes you mention, I was presenting Geoffrey’s point of view, not Richard’s, so naturally he saw Richard as the aggressor. I think Geoffrey and Constance were right to worry what would happen when Richard took the throne, given his dislike and mistrust of them. But again, Richard would have argued that his mistrust and dislike was based upon their past bad behavior.
Richard certainly had a military mind; he was a soldier first and foremost. But once he became king, he did not seize lands that were not his. His war with Philippe was one of protecting what was already his. When he took control of Messina, Sicily, he meant to use it as a bargaining chip with the Sicilian king in order to recover his sister Joanna’s dowry and the legacy that her husband had left for the crusade, and it worked very well; Tancred came to terms within days. And when he took Cyprus, it was not for himself. He clearly saw it as a supply base for the Crusaders, and while some Victorian historians criticized him for not holding onto Cyprus, he never had any interest in conquering it for England. He made out like a bandit with Cyprus, actually, first selling it to the Templars, and then when they decided it was too much trouble and gave it back, he sold it again to the deposed King of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan. Needless to say, he did not refund the money the Templars had paid, either!
Sorry, I got side=tracked. I’d actually wanted to comment upon the challenge of portraying characters through hostile eyes. Geoffrey and Richard each suspected the worst of the other. In Lionheart, Conrad, the Marquess of Montferrat, will probably not come off too well because he will be seen primarily through Richard’s eyes and Richard detested him. But when I do my novel about Balian of Ibelin, I hope to be able to provide a more balanced portrayal of Conrad, who was Balian’s ally. In her novel about Elizabeth of York, Roberta Gellis actually apologized in her AN for the negative image of Richard III, explaining that this was not her own view of Richard, but the hostile view of Henry Tudor and his supporters.
Sharon (and the faithful),
I just finished reading Devil’s Brood (much enjoyment!). As I was reading it, I noticed an interesting parallel that was clearly in the news here in America for the last few weeks.
A family of four sons.
The eldest – chosen by his father to be the leader not only of his family but of the country, dies long before “his time.”
The second son – The son who DOES achieve true power in his land, but his term of leadership, although spectacular, is cut tragically short.
The third son – the one considered by many to be the cleverest and most capable of leadership of the four, also dies prematurely.
The fourth son – beset by numerous problems in his youth including allegations of wanton behavior and with a disreputable reputation, this son actually had leadership the longest ansd would have (arguably), the longest lasting affect on his country.
The sons of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine? Maybe, but I was referring to the sons of Joseph and Rose Kennedy:
Joe, the oldest, like Hal, destined for rule, but died early (in WWII).
John F., like Richard had a short, spectacular reign.
Robert – we could as easily speculate on America after 1968 had Bobby won the election over Nixon as we could speculate on England with Geoffrey instead of John.
and Edward (Ted) – though never President, his long-lasting affects on American social policy may be as long-reaching as John’s signing of the Magna Carta (even if coerced) and his legacy of rule through his descendents.
Has anyone else postulated this parallel?
Thanks, again, for the engrossing picture of medieval life, and I look forward to Lionheart.
Personally the very idea of even trying to compare Edward Kennedy and King John is just baffling; I couldn’t think of two men more opposite. Certainly Edward and John share the legacy of making long reaching policy, tho Johns was certainly cohersed. Edward actually wanted to make the world, or at least his country, a better place. I dunno, the whole thing is a stretch, reminds me of all those comparisons between Kennedy and Lincoln (both have VPs named Johnson for example). Fun experiement I guess, but a parallel that is stretched to the breaking point.
Actually – I kind of get Jack’s comparison. Ted Kennedy was the last of four sons of a dynasty- a son that no one had much in the way of expectations for….a son who had to take up a mantle that was daunting to say the least…agreed, John coveted the role and Ted was sort of thrust into it… And Ted was above all human – making many awful mistakes but still managing to achieve certain victories. Anyway – this is interesting!
Although to my mind, John being coerced really doesn’t matter, as most of the provisions on the charter had already been made by him. This is brought across quite clearly in Here Be Dragons. John tells Richard how he had proposed most of these provisions in a charter he gave while he was Earl of Gloucester. So I think him being coerced doesn’t change the fact that he was the main contributor to the charter.
Jack,
I totally agree with you.
Nothing new under the sun. Humans are humans with all that goes with it, throw in the nature with hurricanes, earthquakes and the rest and that shapes the history.
I’m reading “Bess of Hardwick” (Mary S. Lovell) and “Katherine Swynford” (Alison Weir) right now. Very intresting how the people were connected to each other.
Jack, what an interesting comparison. I never thought of it that way. Thanks for enlightening us!
Sharon, you are right. Arthur was not considered a child but I couldn’t help but think of him that way in my mind. When I was reading about what Arthur attempted to do, I kept referring back to what Henry II tried with Stephen. How different England may have been had Stephen not laughed at Henry’s pitiful excuse for a rebellion and then gave Henry money to return home.
Hi, Jack,
Very interesting suggestion. It had never occurred to me before. But I agree with Cindy; I don’t see Teddy as John. I was once struck, though, by parallels between the Kennedys and the House of York. Cecily Neville and Rose Kennedy, the devout, stalwart family matriarchs. Edward and JFK as the golden boy older brothers, to whom everything came so easy, including the ladies. And Richard and RFK as the faithful younger brothers, as intense and emotional as their brothers were “cool,” never fully coming out from under their shadows. Superficial, I know, but sort of fun.
Brenna, I know exactly what you mean. It is hard for us to remember that medievl teenagers were often given the responsibilities of grown men. Think of Richard III, commanding the vanguard at Barnet and Tewkesbury when he was just 18, or his brother Edward claiming the crown at 19. Or Henry II sending Richard and Geoffrey off to deal with rebels at 17 and 16. Of course when he tried that with John in Ireland, he got your more typical teenage screw-up! And yes, Henry was very lucky that Stephen didn’t take him seriously, although I do think that if Henry had really found himself in serious trouble, Robert and Maude would have hurried to his rescue. That has always been one of my favorite Henry stories, for it tells us so much about his personality, even at the young age of 14. And I think it reflects well on Stephen, too, although his own barons didn’t think so at the time.
Oh my gosh, I LOVE fantasy books! Fantasy easily ties for my favorite genre, possibly even nudging out historical fiction by a nose, although that’s a very close second. I feel safe to say that here because the cool thing about the online forum is that no one can *actually* catch me and burn me at the stake for heresy. 😀
Some of the richest fiction I’ve ever read has been fantasy. Tolkien’s books alone are worth reading more than once for the beauty of the prose and the epid good vs. evil allegory. They may have been written for children, but the language and the message are without age. The Kushiel’s Legacy series by Jacqueline Carey is also superbly written, filled with amazing detail, political scheming, royal intrigue and more. Urban fantasy makes me all tingly inside. I don’t mind a bit of time traveling if it gets the plot going in other books, such as Diana Gabaldon’s series. And I confess I’m a sucker for a good vampire story. Lame pun intended. No, I do not consider the Twilight series to be “a good vampire story.”
Because of my love for fantasy, I vacillated for a brief moment between being amused and mortally offended by P&P&Z. I eventually came down firmly on the side of being mortally offended. I agree with others who have said that injecting random zombie/vamp/faeries/etc into existing literature is unimaginative at best, criminal at worst. I hope it’s just a spoof, but it makes me twitch to think that this is what we have to resort to in order to get people to read actual literature. I think Miss Austen would be spinning in her grave. And I am sure there’s a compelling feminist argument that could be made about how making these types of changes to Austen’s work is a sublimation of her identity as a female writer.
Also, I must say that reading the first paragraph of this blog entry made me *so* excited to read Lionheart! It sounds like it’s going to be incredible and I can’t wait!
That’s an interesting comment about fictional characters and free will. I know some people who use their characters like galley slaves (that’s an awesome quote, by the way! I’d never heard it before) but I, for one, have a very organic writing style. I know roughly where I want a story to end up, but how my characters get there is as much a mystery to me as anyone. My characters do sometimes make it clear in no uncertain terms that they are going to do THIS, not THAT, and I have no say in it.
Thanks for the reminder about Elizabeth Chadwick’s book release. I am eagerly waiting for my own copy to arrive!
Have a great day! 🙂
Guess what? Another history fact: Today Richard I, Coeur de Lion was crowned King of England.
And I finished Devil’s Brood. It was amazing, and I can’t wait for Lionheart. I completely agree with what Eleanor told Richard, and her feelings towards John.
What scene between Eleanor and Richard are you referring to, Koby? I am so glad you enjoyed the book, but most of the credit has to go to the Angevins; no writer could make stuff like this up. That family abounded in ironies. If Henry had given Eleanor one-fourth of the trust she got from Richard, their marriage might have stayed on track. Henry used her political skills very sparingly, whereas Richard literally left his kingdom in her capable hands. Sad, too, that the close relationship Eleanor enjoyed with Richard was what Henry so desperately wanted with his sons. If only he hadn’t kept sabotaging himself!
Cindy, I see what you mean about gift of sight/supernatural. I was just comparing (in my head) to White and Bradley’s versions.
Jack, cool parallels. Didn’t see it, but I do now.
Kristen Elizabeth, a good fantasy book from a normally HF writer is Tathea by Anne Perry.
Sharon, I’m missing Eleanor and Richard already! Glad for the updates.
Sharon, I love to hear you write about Richard, Henry and Eleanor. Your insights are so true. I love Henry, but he never used Eleanor’s political saavy to his advantage. I know that he lived by the adage “there can be only one king,” but Eleanor’s genius could have been put to good use to keep their sons in line and perhaps even to tame the wayward Becket. What do you think?
I was referring to the final scene between Richard and Eleanor, after Henry is dead. And I agree with you regarding the trust issue. Henry was always saying that he would give it to them if he could trust them. But what would ahve made him trust them? I can’t think of anything short of betraying Eleanor.
Oh, and today Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham and prime suspect in the murder of the Princes in the Tower was Born, and Joanna, Queen of Sicily and later Countess of Toulouse died giving birth to her son Richard, who also died. I always wondered how Eleanor felt about that marriage, especially after Joanna fled from Raymond to take refuge in Fonevrault…
Hi, Koby,
Joanna didn’t flee her husband. This is a myth that developed as a result of the way Raymond was slandered by the Church during the Albgensian “crusade.” Raymond was not a Cathar himself, but he infuriated the Church by showing considerable tolerance to the Cathars, and he paid a terrible price for being out of step with conventional religious practices in the late 12th and early 13th century. Joanna had actually attempted herself to put down a rebellion in Toulouse during Raymond’s absence; as the chronicler William of Puylaurens put it, “she was determined to counter the injuries being inflicted on her husband at the hands of numerous magnates and knights.” She was betrayed by some of her own men and her camp set on fire, and she then decided to seek Richard’s help, only to find upon her arrival in his domains that he’d just died at Chalus. She was devastated, and sought Eleanor out. She was pregnant at the time and possibly as a result of her traumatic experience at the siege, she became very ill and eventually died in Rouen in childbirth. Her deathbed wish was to become a nun at Fontevrault, and this was refused because her husband was not there to give his consent. But Eleanor was present and she prevailed, so Joanna was allowed to take vows as she lay dying. I cannot even imagine how awful this experience must have been for Eleanor, who was there with her daughter till her last breath and then had to bury her stillborn grandson. The chronicle makes it perfectly clear that Joanna was seeking military aid from Richard for herself and Raymond and their young son, for she’d had a little boy the year after her marriage. But because it was necessary to discredit Raymond in order to justify the appalling slaughter known as the Albigensian Crusade, the story took root that she’d been fleeing an abusive husband. History gets rewritten by the victors, as Richard III can testify. BTW, one of the most brutal of the battle commanders against the Cathars was Simon de Montfort, the father of “my” Simon in Shadow.
Sorry to ramble on at such length, but truth is so often the first casualty in wars, and Raymond de St Gilles was definitely a victim of circumstances beyond his control. He certainly had his flaws, but he was not the dissolute heretic that his enemies made him out to be. As for the marriage itself, Koby, Richard and Eleanor were delighted, as this finally brought Toulouse into the Angevin orbit, and as you know, Eleanor had something of an obsession with Toulouse, though I personally think her family’s claims were rather tenuous! The marriage of Joanna and Raymond ended what one historian called the “forty year old war” between the Angevins and Toulouse, and the alliance held firm even after Joanna’s tragic death. At one point, Raymond and his son were forced to take refuge in England. But while John welcomed them, he was unable to offer military aid. Had Richard lived, it would have been a different story.
Yes, I did note that the source I was reading (can’t recall it at the moment) had some wierd contradictions. On one hand, She fled her husband. On the other, she was in the midst of fighting her husband’s rebel vassals when she was betrayed and forced to flee. The presence of Raymond in John’s court also made no sense to me.
Interestingly enough, Wikipedia does not claim she was fleeing her husband. However, it does say ‘This new husband treated her none too gently, however, and Joan came to fear him and his knights.’ Another claim which I am dubious of. Richard and Eleanor would certainly have believed her, and she was quite close enough to tell them so. The sources cited, by the way, are Robert of Torigni, Roger of Hoveden, Ralph of Diceto and Guillaume de Puylaurens. Obviously, all of them were priests/monks, aside from Roger, who is assumed to have been a clerk, though this is not certain.
Oh, Sharon a quick question: In Devil’s Brood, someone quoted Bernard of Claivaux on the Angevins: “From the Devil they come, to the Devil they shall go.” Is this sourced? Or is it attributed?
Sharon,
Just reading your response to Koby makes me tinge with anticipation for how these scenes will be written (presumably) in Lionheart.
Oh, and Koby, this is why we Social Studies teachers don’t allow Wikipedia to be used as cited “authority” in our students’ papers!
Hello everyone! Thank you so much Suzanne for the wonderful comment about my Arthur series – the Pendragon’s Banner Trilogy. The second in the Trilogy has just been published in the US & Canada – which I am really excited about.
Mary Stewart’s novels ‘The Hollow Hills’ etc were the inspiration behind the trilogy, until reading her books I had only come across Arthur in the Medieval tales – which I confess I have never been too keen on. Mary Stewart added the dimension that Arthur (if he had really existed) was more likely to have lived in the post Roman era, which excited me tremendously. I set about researching – and was hooked. I didn’t settle down to writing what turned out to be my first novel, ‘ The Kingmaking’, until I’d read Marion Zimmer Bradley’s ‘Mists of Avalon.’ A good book, but I so disagreed with her portrayal of Gwenhwyfar (Guinevere) so much so, that at one point I threw the book across the room in dismay – and vowed to write the story how I thought it happened. At this point I have to add that Sharon was the instigator of my scribblings being turned into a published book. She very kindly guided me through the initial errors and set me on the road to being published – I will always be grateful to you Sharon for having the patience with a very raw writer! (I am not going to work out how many years ago that was though! 🙂
On the subject of fantasy for adults – I also write an adventure fantasy series. If you liked the Pirates of the Caribbean movies – and Jack Sparrow, you may like my Sea Witch Series. (Both Sharon and Elizabeth Chadwick granted me the honour of giving me fabulous quotes – and both lovely ladies have been so supportive in what was a scary step when Sea Witch and her Captain, Jesamiah Acorne, set sail. Thank you!)
I thought long and hard about how to describe the series: most of the events are based on historical facts, and the nautical detail is as accurate as I can write it – under the careful guiding eye of my wonderful Sailing Editor, author James L. Nelson. But I wanted to bring in a fantasy element as well, so I was not keen on using the term “historical fantasy”. I have settled on ‘adventure fantasy’ as I think this is the most apt description. The one great advantage of writing fantasy is that it is great to be able to make scenes up without worrying about the detail of research – and the huge advantage – my hero gets to stay alive at the end of each book!
Regarding Sharon’s question: It matters most to me whether or not the book is well-written. And while I prefer my historical fiction to be accurate, I also believe the genre is wide enough to allow for a range of historical accuracy. It hinges upon the history:fiction ratio.
Our beloved Sharon dramatizes real people and actual events that took place at physical locations we can visit today. Such subjects carry with them a higher level of responsibility to be true to what happened, and I deeply respect and gravitate towards authors like Sharon and Elizabeth Chadwick, who take that responsibility seriously.
Tilting the seesaw in the other direction, authors who center their story around fictional characters set in a historical time period can employ more… wiggle room — IF the book is true to its setting and any guest appearances by genuine historical figures are carefully depicted. When fantastical elements are added, the premise needs to be well established upfront, and the author needs to remain true to it.
As for to the Ariana Franklin books, I’ve read the first two. I enjoyed the first one, the scenes with Henry highlights of the book; I was less accepting of the second, although it’s hard to begrudge a scene where Eleanor triumphs over Rosamund; I’m skeptical of the third, because the series thus far has been firmly grounded in reality, and I don’t see how it can be carried on successfully.
I agree with you April, the quality of the writing makes a huge difference – no matter what the genre is.
Up to a point all historical fiction is “fantasy” as most of it is imagination. As authors we research the factual elements, which provide the basic skeleton then fill in the rest to flesh the skeleton out and bring it alive. It is the quality of the research (as well as the writing!) that makes a historical novel good, medium or poor.
Sharon & Elizabeth’s books (can I be bold enough to add mine as well?) are very good books because we take time and trouble to research the facts and make our skeletons as complete as possible. Our padding is also as accurate as we can get, so the reader cannot see the join between fact and fiction.
It is the small details that can make or break a book – Sharon mentioned her grey squirrel. A few “boobs” do slip through (we are only human after all!) but I read a book set in Roman Britain that had a Roman sitting up on Hadrian’s Wall eating a rabbit and potato stew. Now rabbits I could forgive as it is not so widely known that they came to England with the Normans – but potatoes? The error made me lose interest in the book entirely as suddenly all of it became unbelievable.
I often say “the art of writing is creating the real from the imaginary”: Sharon’s books are so superb because they conjure reality from the very first sentence and sweep you along on a rollar-coaster ride of utter, blissful enjoyment!
P.S.
Sharon mentions Roman Galley Slaves: I read somewhere that it seems probable that they did not use slaves aboard the warships, slaves were only for merchant vessels.
The reason being, slaves could not be relied upon to give all they’ve got in a battle situation (i.e row flat-out)
The great Triremes were more likely manned by soldiers (well Ok, sailors! 😉 who rowed and fought. Slaves would not have been disciplined or fit enough.
Makes logical sense to me!
Today Constance, Duchess of Brittany died, and Louis, the son of Philippe was born.
I was surprised and impressed that my casual question about fantasy sparked such a lively and interesting discussion. As for myself, I don’t usually read fantasy. I know that there are some brilliant fantasy writers, but the genre doesn’t appeal to me. However I do really like Charlaine Harris’s series about Sookie Stackhouse and her vampire lovers; I love her gallows humor. Hey, whoever said consistency was a virtue? I am also perfectly willing to accept Diana Gabaldon’s time travel; a good writer makes us willing to suspend disbelief.
I hope to have the new blog up tomorrow, so I want to address any questions now that I haven’t gotten to yet. Nicolette, no, I have never cried over the death of one of my characters. And that is odd, because I am a sucker for a sad novel or film; I always cry when George Clooney dies on screen and I had to stop reading Marley and Me before I got to the last chapter because I was on a plane and didn’t want to embarrass myself; I waited and did my sobbing in the privacy of my hotel room. But no tears shed even when Richard died at Bosworth or Simon died at Evesham or Henry at Chinon.
Koby, I have read the sources cited in that Wikipedia article about Joanna and found nothing in any of them to support the Wikipedia hypothesis. I’m with you on this, Jack; while Wikipedia is a great, quick way to find some superficial knowledge about a subject or historical figure, you have to approach it with caution. For example, my entry in Wikipedia used to say that I specialized in taking utterly fictional characters and weaving their story into the real historical events of the time. That certainly was a surprise to me! You also asked about Bernard of Clairvaux. I am afraid I cannot remember where that quote came from, and my Devil’s Brood notes are not accessible. And if I were to take the time to research this now, Richard would have a conniption fit—he is just about to launch one of his more spectacular military adventures, in which he and about fifty knights put an enemy army to flight, and he is eager to claim victory. So does anyone else happen to have the answer to Koby’s question? He wanted to know the source for the comment by Bernard that the Angevins came from the Devil and to the Devil they’d go. It certainly sounds like Bernard; he loathed Henry’s father Geoffrey, was very disapproving of Eleanor, and wasn’t all that fond of Henry, either.
Okay, I am going to end now with a few quick questions for you guys, and then see if I can finish the new blog. Sandy, you said that Allison Weir said she didn’t believe Elizabeth Tudor had a miscarriage; did she explain, then, why she’d written it into her novel? Jack, I was intrigued by the line you drew between the Kennedys and Henry’s sons, but my question relates to your work. As a social studies teacher, is it difficult to interest your students in the study of history? Do you ever use films or novels to awaken that first spark? I’ve always found it so very sad when I hear people say that history is boring
I have read this blog and the comments through with fascination, and see that this may be too late and a new blog may be up.
I was introduced by my mother to historical fiction with Anya Seton’s books, which sparked an interest in me to find out more about the past.
Fantasy with Mary Stewart then played a part in my reading, I think that I agree with the person above who spoke of fantasy being read by the younger person more than the older person, although sometimes a good escape is helpful.
I like many above am looking forward to the Lionheart being published after it has gone through the editing stage. Mind you I would also love some more of the Justin de Quincy mystery’s to be written, or something similar for mysterys are another type of book that I love.
If I remember correctly Alison Weir seemed to write about the miscarriage
to try to explain some of Seymour’s actions, and to try to make the story flow. It sort of allowed for the seclusion of Elizabeth to have a purpose.
I agree with you regarding Wikipedia, Sharon, but I personally feel that there exists a greater problem: the acceptance of what contemporary writers/chroniclers write as gospel. The fact is, you can’t trust them exactly because they were contemporary, and so were affected and biased by what they wrote about. The only way you can accept contemporary writing is by looking at the writer, and seeing how he feels. Thus, if a chronichler in England (who was not a churchman) wrote that Raymond of Touolouse was a bad man and Joanna fled from him, it would be much easier to accept than Guillaume de Puylaurens, who was in France and supported the Albgensian “crusade”. This is a fatal flaw, to my mind. Circumstances matter.
Just one last question, then: Since quite a few years have passed, do you still believe that it was the Duke of Buckingham who arranged for the princes in the Tower to be killed? Or have you changed your mind, and now believe it was Lady Stanley or soemone else?
If I know a book is a fantasy then I don’t mind the supernatural, but it is a real turn off for me in historical or otherwise realistic fiction.
I’m currently reading The Reckoning and am really enjoying it. I’m an American living in North Wales and as I’ve read through the trilogy I’ve visited the various places such as Powys, Conwy, etc.
Laptops will revolutionize the US when they are accessible to everyone financially. Think of every man and women, having a personal laptop.
This is a good approach to what, for some, may be a controversial topic. Very well though out post. – I am an only child. I have one sister. – Woody Allen Born 1935
Just read it and went gosh, I know why I was poor in the debate class. – True, I
thanks for this post mate. hope you have a good day. thanks. 🙂
thanks for this post mate. hope you have a good day. thanks. 🙂
Cheers for this compelling blog post. I am keen to see more on this topic in the not too distant future. Thanks again
I don’t commonly add comments to any kind of content online, but this article deserves my attention. For what it’s worth, you’ve done a fantastic job of getting across your points and I’m with you.
A great article is as much about writing flair as it is about technicalities, but you have it all. It takes a great writer to have flair and and skill.
I am joyful to find so unique constructive information at this point, we should have create additional techniques in this regard.
Woah! I’m really digging the template/theme of this blog. It’s simple, yet effective. A lot of times it’s very hard to get that “perfect balance” between superb usability and appearance. I must say you’ve done a great job with this. In addition, the blog loads extremely fast for me on Chrome. Exceptional Blog!
Love your blog!
Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article. I¡¯ll make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your useful information.
I rarely comment, but i did some searching and wound up here Sharon Kay Penman » Blog Archive » Sicily recedes into the distance. And I actually do have 2 questions for you if you do not mind. Is it just me or does it look as if like a few of the remarks appear like they are written by brain dead people? 😛 And, if you are posting at additional online sites, I’d like to keep up with everything new you have to post. Could you make a list of all of all your public pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?
Hey! I extremely like the lengthy effort you’ve spent on this site. Actually, my dad and I have also been creating a site on exotic fruit and their health benefits. Your blog’s organization is a great help for our new site. Keep up the good information! Looking forward to seeing more posts from you! I just added this blog to my bookmarks.
It’s actually a great and helpful piece of info. I’m glad that you shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
Hey great blog site you have , I actually cherished it .. I just have a very issue … how frequently you update it ? Thanks !
I like to start with a focus on my mind and then go from there. You really can’t get much done without cleaning house upstairs if you know what I mean. I went through the ideas here and it is a pretty simple process, but it works great. Everytime I get stuck on something, I go back to the basics. Just my two pennies…
Internet logs such as this one read for hours and your information are appropriate and well crafted, we do hope you could keep updating the blog for all of us people who likes to follow the planet via the internet, let us are all aware if we can help or contribute something to help keep this website going!
This is certainly extraordinary. Scientists looked at the promise gist therefore we are taken aback. We’re fascinated by one of these methods. Anyone appreciate body tape, and cost the effort with this. Please keep adding information to. They may be unbelievably essential contact information spot that may give your masses an incredibly wash facts and figures.
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find It really helpful & it helped me out much.
I am hoping to provide one thing again and help others like
you aided me.
You should take part in a contest for one of the greatest websites on the web.
I most certainly will highly recommend this website!
Good day I am so thrilled I found your site, I really found you by mistake,
while I was searching on Bing for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to
say kudos for a marvelous post and a all round exciting blog (I
also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to browse it all at
the minute but I have saved it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will
be back to read much more, Please do keep up the
superb b.
F*ckin’ tremendous issues here. I’m very glad to see your post. Thank you a lot and i’m looking forward to touch you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?
so ? gaining. ? the ? upfront ? such
Doubleedged blades are very sharp and typically leave nicks and cuts on the inexperienced consumer. Shaving with the grain and producing several passes is hugely encouraged on safety blades.
Complete cleaners of Edinburgh provide high quality Contract cleaning Services throughout Edinburgh.
I truly have found out something from this article, your site it’s really fascinating and appealing. You have gained a lifetime guest with this article only!