The beauty of the unhidden heart

[dolorosa_12]

It's been a good, restful weekend, all of which was sorely needed. Matthias brought a cold back with him when he returned from Germany last Sunday, which hit me like a truck on Tuesday, and I was sick for most of the rest of the week. I preemptively cancelled all bookings for swimming slots and fitness classes, and even stopped doing yoga (although I suspect I would have been able to manage that). Beyond that, I just did the bare minimum. For the most part, I feel recovered by now, but it was good to have an excuse to stay at home and nest.

I cooked the usual wintry stodge — congee on Friday night, covered in an excess of chili oil, a thick tomato-y vegetable stew last night, Polish goulash tonight — so most afternoons have begun with something bubbling on the stove. I lounged around under a blanket, rereading old favourite books (of which more later), and watching biathlon out of the corner of my eye. Apart from a trip into a cafe in town which sells mulled wine, I basically haven't left the house since Thursday. Last night Matthias and I watched Polite Society — a film we've had our eyes on for a while, a comedy in which a British-Pakistani teenager becomes increasingly suspicious that her sister's fiance and his overbearing mother are not all they seem, and chaos and hijinks ensue. It's the work of the same writer who was behind We Are Ladyparts, and written with the same affectionate humour and focus on the relationships between women and girls.

I had meant to spend time writing a second Yuletide treat (the main assignment, and one treat are finished), but somehow that ended up being a lot of time spent on Dreamwidth, with posts that generated a lot of comments. A reminder, for those who missed them on Friday, that I have one post up where people can share their fandomtrees sign ups and holiday love meme threads, and another post up acting as an kind of all-purpose recs collection. Feel free to add your own contributions.

I also managed to transcribe the last four old newspaper book reviews from 2005 to my reviews blog ... so now I just have the years 2006-2013 to go! It should get easier soon, though, as the later years I still have in Word documents, whereas the earlier articles were either saved to desktop on an old computer, or written in now-incompatible file formats. As always, I feel a bit amused at the self-righteous certainty with which I wrote, and the way that I constantly asserted my own narrative tastes and preferences and ~thoughts about literature as if they were objective facts. The reviews are as follows

Weaving a magic thread (on The Curse of Zohreh by Sophie Masson)
Magic: the garden variety (on Magic or Madness by Justine Larbalestier)
Love and dreams for better things (on Alyzon Whitestarr by Isobelle Carmody)
A fantasy novel like a pebble set (on The Well of Tears by Cecilia Dart-Thornton)

Suffice it to say that my tastes have changed a lot since 2005.

Nowhere is this more starkly illustrated than in my experience rereading, back to back, six Sharon Penman historical doorstoppers in quick succession. Penman debuted with an extremely partisan account of the life and rule of Richard III, and then wrote a trilogy about the Angevins and Poitevins, and another trilogy about medieval Welsh princes, the Norman-English monarchy, and Simon de Montfort, and it's these latter trilogies that I've been rereading. I remember absolutely loving these books when I was in my early twenties, and being filled with admiration for (what I saw as) Penman's meticulous research and attention to detail. She certainly researched the books thoroughly — in the sense of knowing which historical figure was where, doing what, when, and day-to-day minutiae of medieval material culture — but their flaws are much more apparent to me now. They're aggressively heterosexual (in a way which I suppose was much more common in historical fiction published in the 1990s and early 2000s), and although Penman is conscious of the fact that medieval sources could be partisan and untrustworthy, her own firm opinions about certain historical figures introduce their own kind of bias which is understandable, but of which I don't quite believe she was ever fully conscious. If she likes or admires a character, they display modern sensibilities, challenging (even if only in the privacy of their own mind or marriage) religious and sociocultural certainties of their era, so as to make them more likeable to Penman's perceived 21st-century readers' capacity for empathy. I don't always mind this kind of thing, if I feel the author is conscious that they're doing it, but I'm not convinced that Penman was, and, if challenged, would have protested about her in-depth research and so on.

I also just remember finding all the central relationships in these novels to be the height of romance and tragedy, whereas now — although I still enjoy the endless messy Plantagenet soap opera — it's as if I enjoy the story of these historical figures while trying to ignore Penman's writing and interpretation, which makes for a strange reading experience.

It's been an interesting experience, that's for sure!

Comments

[muccamukk]

That's a cool project. I used to gulp down that kind of book at a similar age, and probably just don't want to know what looking back would be like.

I know exactly what you mean about how hit or miss giving 14th century characters modern perspectives can be. Sometimes it's okay, but so often it's exactly what you're talking about with unconscious bias where "Good = Modern" and I just don't find it all that interesting. I'm into historical fiction for how people thought in another time. Time travel fiction is for how people from this time would've thought in the 14th century.

[dolorosa_12]

I also feel that a lot of authors pick and choose when it comes to which components of 'modern perspectives' they employ. So a character they admire will display the author's interpretation of chivalrous medieval behaviour — but also treat the women in their lives as equals in every context, and find exactly the same elements of medieval Catholic religious practice ludicrous as a 21st-century reader. And so on.

It's a different version of the phenomenon I've noticed in a lot of current genre fiction by Extremely Online authors — an intense anxiety that their readers are going to think that depiction equals endorsement, and consequently being unbelievably explicit in stating — in-text — that they are aware that whatever kind of bigotry is being depicted is wrong. But here it's motivated by a fear that readers won't love the author's historical faves if those characters display any hint of an unfamiliar morality. I find it frustrating and condescending — but I obviously didn't notice it back when I first read those Penman novels.

[kore]

-- Oh ghod is Sharon Penman the one who wrote the book about how horrible and unmanly and gross Edward II was (so that even his lover reviled him) with a long and graphic depiction of the red-hot poker scene?

[laurenthemself]

I truly think reviewers are so clever for being able to say exactly what they liked about a piece of media. I try to at least write something for Storygraph when I finish a book. So many of my reactions either start out or devolve into flailing and/or emoticon use.

I'm still working away on my Yuletide assignment, which is unusual; normally at this point in the timeline I have a finished first draft, but this one's been a bit sticky. I'm hoping the upturn in my health will help me towards finishing, as I'd love to write at least one treat as well. I've had a lot of difficulty writing since 2020 but I've not missed a Yuletide yet and I don't mean to.

[chestnut_pod]

Penman sounds, perhaps, like Dorothy Dunnett! There's a certain kind of respect to "novels that should have been fringe biographies."

[vriddy]

Well done on doing such a good job recovering, I'm glad you're feeling better :)

[merit]

Maybe that's why I've struggled with some historical fiction! Though I can tolerate it more if the author plays hard fast with the truth, or has a more of wink-nudge approach to history.

[dolorosa_12]

I don't remember that specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me!

[dolorosa_12]

I used to be so much better at reviewing (even though I had a lot of unacknowledged biases) when I was doing it professionally — I guess just because I wrote so many of them. There was a period during my undergrad years when I was probably writing more than one review per month (some reviews being of 3-5 books at a time). Even when I moved to the UK and reviewed less frequently, I feel my writing flowed better because I blogged so actively — written reviewing is like a muscle that needs to be exercised frequently to retain fluency.

Good luck with Yuletide! I'm sure you'll get there in the end!

[dolorosa_12]

I've only read Dunnett's books once, so I'm not sure I could compare, but she certainly had her own firm favourites when it came to historical figures. I love the idea of 'novels that should have been fringe biographies' — that's exactly it!

[dolorosa_12]

Thank you!

[dolorosa_12]

Exactly! If it's tongue-in-cheek like A Knight's Tale, it can be really enjoyable — my problem comes more when something is written with po-faced obsession with 'extensive research' and 'historical accuracy' but has huge obvious unacknowledged biases.

In general, I think I prefer historical mystery series which use real historical figures and events as background to the mysteries, rather than stories that are straight up retellings of historical events with real people as the main characters.

[svgurl]

Taking rest when you're sick is the right move and I'm glad you're feeling better! I hope Matthias has recovered as well.

[lirazel]

What a cozy weekend! I've also had my eye on Polite Society for a while, but I didn't realize it was the We Are Lady Parts lady! That definitely bumps it up considerably!

If she likes or admires a character, they display modern sensibilities, challenging (even if only in the privacy of their own mind or marriage) religious and sociocultural certainties of their era, so as to make them more likeable to Penman's perceived 21st-century readers' capacity for empathy. I don't always mind this kind of thing, if I feel the author is conscious that they're doing it, but I'm not convinced that Penman was, and, if challenged, would have protested about her in-depth research and so on.

This is really interesting, and I know what you mean about the consciousness of it being a big part of whether it's overlook-able.

[dolorosa_12]

Thank you! We're both completely better now, but it was good to have some time to rest.

[dolorosa_12]

I thought that Polite Society might appeal to you! It's definitely in a very similar vein to We Are Lady Parts.

I know what you mean about the consciousness of it being a big part of whether it's overlook-able.

Exactly. If it's done in a kind of tongue in cheek The Knight's Tale way, I enjoy it, but if I feel it's being done in order to manipulate me into feeling warmly towards the author's pet historical fave, it feels almost as if I'm being made to read propaganda. I feel that if a historical figure had an interesting life, I'll find their story compelling in the hands of a good writer, even if said historical figure's values don't align with my own.