The King's Grace, by Anne Easter Smith
Jan. 21st, 2012 10:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotI just started this book a few days ago, and I'm pleasantly surprised that I don't hate it! I mean, it's not perfect, but I haven't felt like throwing it anywhere. I do have a few issues, though.
1) Is it just me, or do these types of historical fiction only come in two flavors?
- "I am a conventional, quiet woman, and since well-behaved women rarely make history my name is just a mention in a family tree. I try to get along as best I can, but I'm forced into events I'd rather not be involved with by circumstances beyond my control. Oh dear." Eg: The Other Boleyn Girl
- "I am a free-spirited, ambitious woman! Because of this, history remembers me as a Bad Girl and possibly a witch. But everything they say about me is wrong, rumors made up because people can't handle my awesomeness." Eg: The White Queen
This book is definitely in the first category. Grace is an illegitimate daughter of Edward IV, brought up in a convent until Elizabeth Woodville sent for her after Edward's death; she's in awe of graceful and kind young Elizabeth, but finds Cecily kind of mean and uncouth. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it's just that it comes off to me (at this point; it might change) as a deliberate choice to belong to a category, rather than organic characterization.
2) There's this presentist kind of ... thing running through it. IDK how to explain it. Like they're playing cards and someone says, "this queen is ugly! I would draw you in it if I made a deck of cards, Elizabeth of York, ha ha ha." And Grace is solving the mystery of the princes in the tower, and whenever someone talks about it it's just so rational and clearly setting out the evidence. If I wanted to read someone being deductive about it, I would reread Daughter of Time. After having read A Storm of Swords, though, where rumor and a lack of real information were handled so well, it really stands out to me.
3) Okay, last thing, kind of nitpicky, but just as point one was about a systemic issue, so is this. It feels like someone (probably Philippa Gregory) wrote a book from this era and everyone else decided that that would be The Language of the Tudor Novel. Never say "it is" - only "'tis"! Never say "yes" - only "certes"! It's similar to the way that many people take Georgette Heyer's voice to be The Language of the Regency Novel. In general, I think it relates to the "drawing symbols that your brain knows mean 'nose', 'eyes' vs. drawing what you actually see" concept in Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.
1) Is it just me, or do these types of historical fiction only come in two flavors?
- "I am a conventional, quiet woman, and since well-behaved women rarely make history my name is just a mention in a family tree. I try to get along as best I can, but I'm forced into events I'd rather not be involved with by circumstances beyond my control. Oh dear." Eg: The Other Boleyn Girl
- "I am a free-spirited, ambitious woman! Because of this, history remembers me as a Bad Girl and possibly a witch. But everything they say about me is wrong, rumors made up because people can't handle my awesomeness." Eg: The White Queen
This book is definitely in the first category. Grace is an illegitimate daughter of Edward IV, brought up in a convent until Elizabeth Woodville sent for her after Edward's death; she's in awe of graceful and kind young Elizabeth, but finds Cecily kind of mean and uncouth. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it's just that it comes off to me (at this point; it might change) as a deliberate choice to belong to a category, rather than organic characterization.
2) There's this presentist kind of ... thing running through it. IDK how to explain it. Like they're playing cards and someone says, "this queen is ugly! I would draw you in it if I made a deck of cards, Elizabeth of York, ha ha ha." And Grace is solving the mystery of the princes in the tower, and whenever someone talks about it it's just so rational and clearly setting out the evidence. If I wanted to read someone being deductive about it, I would reread Daughter of Time. After having read A Storm of Swords, though, where rumor and a lack of real information were handled so well, it really stands out to me.
3) Okay, last thing, kind of nitpicky, but just as point one was about a systemic issue, so is this. It feels like someone (probably Philippa Gregory) wrote a book from this era and everyone else decided that that would be The Language of the Tudor Novel. Never say "it is" - only "'tis"! Never say "yes" - only "certes"! It's similar to the way that many people take Georgette Heyer's voice to be The Language of the Regency Novel. In general, I think it relates to the "drawing symbols that your brain knows mean 'nose', 'eyes' vs. drawing what you actually see" concept in Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.
