I just finished The Three Richards by Nigel Saul. For this review I'm stepping out of the character of the Persnickity Historian and just sharing my Goodreads review.
It's pretty disorganized though the premise seems simple enough, comparing the three English kings named Richard. There are a few issues with how Saul does this, however. The book is divided into topics, beginning with a biographical chapter for each Richard and then topical chapters-- religion, appearance, family, etc. and within that, each Richard in order. Things are admittedly skewed toward Richard II, in part because the most information on his reign survives, and also probably because Saul's main topic is Richard II, he's written the biography that's still the standard. It gets a little frustrating when trying to compare things that don't have the same amount of information. While comparing people of the same name and of such varying reputation is an interesting idea, the three Richards lived in different eras and covering such vast periods of time and changes in England is also going to be difficult. It'd be like trying to talk about the French and Indian War (Seven Years' War in Europe), the American Civil War, and the Vietnam War in one book, but structured as a biography of William Pitt, Ulysses S. Grant, and Creighton Abrams.
This book reminded me of the usual five paragraph essay structure, and especially a kind of paper assigned in my US history class-- three primary sources to be used to answer a question like "How did Americans before WWI define freedom?" The question here might be "In what ways were Richard I, Richard II, and Richard III similar? In what ways were they different?" Saul's major problem is there's no thesis, no reason to care about the information presented. I really love Richard II (including being sympathetic to him, not just an interest in him) but I don't know a whole lot about Richard I and definitely don't know anything about Richard III. Unfortunately (this may be my fault, I'm biased in my interests) I wasn't as interested in the sections on Dicks I and III. If it's not entirely my fault, it's probably because the topics didn't fit together well enough to show me why comparing the three is important.
There are also a few issues with Saul's information in general. Perhaps the most inexplicable is when in the sections on their wives, he talks about Margaret of Anjou (wife of Henry VI) rather than Anne Neville, wife of Richard III. I didn't get the sense that he hates Richard III, but I'm not a Richardian so I might not pick up on more subtle signs of dislike. He certainly doesn't show Dan Jones-level of hatred, with whom it's obvious how much he dislikes Edward II and Richard II; but I did notice he is 100% sure Richard killed his nephews and doesn't even mention any theories to the contrary, which isn't very fair. And on the subject of murders, he says all three died violently, which is only partly true. Richards I and III did indeed die in war, but Richard II most likely died of starvation at Pontefract, though the whole being actually physically murdered with a knife version is most well-known and certainly exciting-- but there is no sign of violence on his skeleton. Being starved to death still counts as murder but it's not exactly violent.
The conclusion was disappointing. As I said above, he has no thesis and just states what he already has earlier, at the beginning of the final chapter and the end of it. I was left thinking "so what?" The information was interesting (aside from the things I've mentioned above, there may have been other issues I didn't catch) but it wasn't organized in a meaningful way so I wouldn't really recommend it.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Don't forget the Dewey Decimal System is your friend!
 |
| The most helpful library assistant |
 |
| The first part of the collection, books in order from right to left |
DDC, or the Dewey Decimal Classification, is the most familiar organization for libraries. It's based on sets of three-digit numbers, called classes or schedules, each one for a general topic. In case you were wondering, here's the breakdown:
000 - Computer science, information science, and general works
100 - Philosophy and psychology
200 - Religion
300 - Social sciences
400 - Language
500 - Science
600 - Technology
700 - Arts and recreation
800 - Literature
900 - History and geography
A lot of our books are in the 500s and 900s, and at the library you can usually find me in the 200s, 800s, and 900s.
Then the calls get more specific, each number after the main class (like 900) narrows it down, and after the decimal point it gets even more specific. For example, we have a lot of books on the American Civil War, which is 973.7. 900 tells you it's history, 7 is North America, 3 is the United States, and .7 is the Civil War.
...When I say we have a lot of books on the Civil War, I'm not exaggerating.
Here are some pictures of this last couple of weeks' progress
I started by taking the books we had on our dining table and entering them into a spreadsheet. These were then crossreferenced with our local library's catalog to find the DDC. After doing that I made simple labels that I printed and affixed with some library-like tape my mother found... which I'm now out of. You can see the label-affixing progress to the left here. When done, I shelved them and they look very professional and not at all like I stole them from the library. You can get all the supplies needed for managing your own home library from thelibrarystore.com, which is accessible even by civilians.
Next time I'll talk about some cataloging and organization methods for books and media. Also coming soon, since this blog is a mess of topics, will be a report on the translation project I've undertaken, which will include a hopefully amusing rant on Middle English.
Until then, take care of yourself and may the good news be yours.
...When I say we have a lot of books on the Civil War, I'm not exaggerating.
Here are some pictures of this last couple of weeks' progress
 |
| Remember: labeling books is good, labeling people is bad. |
 |
| A day's worth of work |
Until then, take care of yourself and may the good news be yours.
Monday, March 19, 2018
The Persnickety Historian Vs. The History Channel
Ah yes, our old friend. The "History Channel."
At one point, I seem to remember them doing stuff on history. I also remember TLC doing educational programming. Television is a vast wasteland of entertainment and education-- call it edutainment-- and . The most infamous example of this, at least in the States, is History Channel. At one point it seemed so saturated with WWII it was jokingly called "The Hitler Channel" and today it's the home of the 100% most incredibly accurate and trustworthy show on television, Ancient Aliens. So it's unsurprising that there is a serious lack of credibility and accountability in anything they say at this point. I just didn't expect to find it in an article about one of my favorite historical figures.
A recent interest (more accurately, obsession) of mine is the 15th century French poet Charles d'Orleans, who briefly appears in Henry V and was far more interesting than Shakespeare let on. He was the nephew of Charles VI, King of France, and became duke at 13 when his father was brutally murdered. He was 21 at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 and was captured and taken to England, where he was held for 25 years. In his copious amounts of free time, Charles learned English and wrote poetry in it as well as French. His life was fraught with heartache, including the deaths of his father in 1407 and mother in 1408, the death in childbirth of his first wife, being part of a civil war, separation from his daughter, everything possible went wrong for him, but I'll talk more about his life as a whole in the rest of this article.
For background, Charles is attributed with writing the first Valentine poem, usually attributed to his years in captivity with his second wife, Bonne d'Armagnac as the recipient. It's pretty miserable as Valentines Day poetry goes.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine,
Since for me you were born too late,
And I for you was born too soon.
God forgives him who has estranged
Me from you for the whole year.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine.
Well might I have suspected
That such a destiny,
Thus would have happened this day,
How much that Love would have commanded.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine. (1)
Now that I've talked a little about Charles in general, what's this got to do with the History Channel? An article that somehow managed to get almost everything wrong. History.com, the website of History Channel ran an article this Valentine's Day about Charles and this poem. I honestly have no idea how you can pack so many mistakes into one article, it's simultaneously disappointing and impressive. Here we go.
[Link to article]
1. “As the nephew of King Charles VI of France, also known as Charles the Mad (who was believed to be schizophrenic), he was caught in the crossfire between his father, Louis I, who presided over the House of Orléans, and his uncle’s family, which oversaw the House of Burgundy, in their fight for control of France.” (2)
— Charles VI and Louis I were the nephews of Philip I of Burgundy (brother of their father Charles V). Philip’s son John the Fearless was Louis’s first cousin and therefore Charles d'Orleans’s first cousin once removed. The duchy of Burgundy was more like an independent state at that time, its ruling family being part of the Valois family (the dynasty then ruling France, so Charles VI was Charles of Valois) but not of the royal primogenitor line, rather a cousin branch, the House of Valois-Burgundy. For these reasons Charles VI had no control over Burgundy. However, the Duke of Burgundy John the Fearless (the king’s first cousin) was regent for the king during periods of his illness, during which time he and Louis jockeyed for power through control over the king.
Note also the use of "was believed to be schizophrenic," which is grammatically anachronistic. That indicates people thought that in his own time.
2. “Charles and his brothers vowed revenge on their first cousin John the Fearless, the Duke of Burgundy, whom they accused of murdering their father in a power grab, intensifying the family civil war.”
— The civil war began after Louis’s assassination in 1407 (the article does not state the year) and as stated above, John the Fearless was Charles’s first cousin once removed. They also didn't even have to make the accusation, as Burgundy confessed to ordering Louis's death soon after. Despite the confession and the brutal nature of the murder and the fact it was the King's brother who'd been killed, Charles and his family had to forgive Burgundy, who defended his actions as killing a tyrant.
3. “It also put the young duke in his father-in-law’s Armagnac camp in the years-long French civil war between the Armagnacs and the Burgundians.”
— The Orleanist party had no leader after Louis’s death, until Bernard VII took control after Charles and Bonne were married. The party was renamed after Armagnac, so in reality Armagnac technically joined Charles’s side.
4. “As battle after battle dragged on between the rival factions, Charles was captured and imprisoned by the Burgundians in 1415. While held prisoner in the Tower of London, he penned a poem to his wife the same year that he was captured at the Battle of Agincourt.”
— Charles was not taken prisoner by the Burgundians, he was captured by the English at the Battle of Agincourt as stated, which is why he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was imprisoned and kept imprisoned for years by King Henry V, most likely since he would be seen as a major threat to Henry's already shaky claim to the French throne.
5. “Beyond the Valentine he sent to Isabella, Charles wrote hundreds of other poems while in prison—many about love and nobility.”
— The recipient was Bonne d'Armagnac, his second wife. In all, Charles would be married three times: first to Isabelle d'Valois, daughter of the King (therefore Charles's cousin) and widow of King Richard II of England; second to Bonne d'Armagnac, daughter of the new head of the party Bernard VII Armagnac; and finally to Marie de Cleves in part of the end of the Burgundian-Armagnac Civil War (interestingly, she was the grandaughter of Burgundy. Yes, that Burgundy.). He and Marie would have three children, including the future King Louis XII of France.
There are also multiple omissions of things that'd be good to note, like who Isabelle was first married to, Richard II; the years of some of these events, and most disappointingly that Charles's mother was named Valentine! The most annoying omission is any form of bibliography. There are no citations, no further reading. This undermines any credibility and leaves the reader stranded. All of this information can be found in the encyclopedia.
If you're interested in Charles and his times and want a well-researched historical novel to get lost in, check out Hella S. Haasse's In a Dark Wood Wandering. I highly recommend it.
(If anything is wrong here, please contact me so I can correct it).
1“A Farewell to Love,” Wikisource, last modified November 2, 2016, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:A_Farewell_to_Love.
2“Thad Morgan, History’s Oldest-Known Valentine Was Written in Prison,” History Channel, last modified February 14, 2018, https://www.history.com/news/historys-oldest-known-valentine-was-written-in-prison.
At one point, I seem to remember them doing stuff on history. I also remember TLC doing educational programming. Television is a vast wasteland of entertainment and education-- call it edutainment-- and . The most infamous example of this, at least in the States, is History Channel. At one point it seemed so saturated with WWII it was jokingly called "The Hitler Channel" and today it's the home of the 100% most incredibly accurate and trustworthy show on television, Ancient Aliens. So it's unsurprising that there is a serious lack of credibility and accountability in anything they say at this point. I just didn't expect to find it in an article about one of my favorite historical figures.
A recent interest (more accurately, obsession) of mine is the 15th century French poet Charles d'Orleans, who briefly appears in Henry V and was far more interesting than Shakespeare let on. He was the nephew of Charles VI, King of France, and became duke at 13 when his father was brutally murdered. He was 21 at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 and was captured and taken to England, where he was held for 25 years. In his copious amounts of free time, Charles learned English and wrote poetry in it as well as French. His life was fraught with heartache, including the deaths of his father in 1407 and mother in 1408, the death in childbirth of his first wife, being part of a civil war, separation from his daughter, everything possible went wrong for him, but I'll talk more about his life as a whole in the rest of this article.
For background, Charles is attributed with writing the first Valentine poem, usually attributed to his years in captivity with his second wife, Bonne d'Armagnac as the recipient. It's pretty miserable as Valentines Day poetry goes.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine,
Since for me you were born too late,
And I for you was born too soon.
God forgives him who has estranged
Me from you for the whole year.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine.
Well might I have suspected
That such a destiny,
Thus would have happened this day,
How much that Love would have commanded.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine. (1)
Now that I've talked a little about Charles in general, what's this got to do with the History Channel? An article that somehow managed to get almost everything wrong. History.com, the website of History Channel ran an article this Valentine's Day about Charles and this poem. I honestly have no idea how you can pack so many mistakes into one article, it's simultaneously disappointing and impressive. Here we go.
[Link to article]
1. “As the nephew of King Charles VI of France, also known as Charles the Mad (who was believed to be schizophrenic), he was caught in the crossfire between his father, Louis I, who presided over the House of Orléans, and his uncle’s family, which oversaw the House of Burgundy, in their fight for control of France.” (2)
— Charles VI and Louis I were the nephews of Philip I of Burgundy (brother of their father Charles V). Philip’s son John the Fearless was Louis’s first cousin and therefore Charles d'Orleans’s first cousin once removed. The duchy of Burgundy was more like an independent state at that time, its ruling family being part of the Valois family (the dynasty then ruling France, so Charles VI was Charles of Valois) but not of the royal primogenitor line, rather a cousin branch, the House of Valois-Burgundy. For these reasons Charles VI had no control over Burgundy. However, the Duke of Burgundy John the Fearless (the king’s first cousin) was regent for the king during periods of his illness, during which time he and Louis jockeyed for power through control over the king.
Note also the use of "was believed to be schizophrenic," which is grammatically anachronistic. That indicates people thought that in his own time.
2. “Charles and his brothers vowed revenge on their first cousin John the Fearless, the Duke of Burgundy, whom they accused of murdering their father in a power grab, intensifying the family civil war.”
— The civil war began after Louis’s assassination in 1407 (the article does not state the year) and as stated above, John the Fearless was Charles’s first cousin once removed. They also didn't even have to make the accusation, as Burgundy confessed to ordering Louis's death soon after. Despite the confession and the brutal nature of the murder and the fact it was the King's brother who'd been killed, Charles and his family had to forgive Burgundy, who defended his actions as killing a tyrant.
3. “It also put the young duke in his father-in-law’s Armagnac camp in the years-long French civil war between the Armagnacs and the Burgundians.”
— The Orleanist party had no leader after Louis’s death, until Bernard VII took control after Charles and Bonne were married. The party was renamed after Armagnac, so in reality Armagnac technically joined Charles’s side.
4. “As battle after battle dragged on between the rival factions, Charles was captured and imprisoned by the Burgundians in 1415. While held prisoner in the Tower of London, he penned a poem to his wife the same year that he was captured at the Battle of Agincourt.”
— Charles was not taken prisoner by the Burgundians, he was captured by the English at the Battle of Agincourt as stated, which is why he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was imprisoned and kept imprisoned for years by King Henry V, most likely since he would be seen as a major threat to Henry's already shaky claim to the French throne.
5. “Beyond the Valentine he sent to Isabella, Charles wrote hundreds of other poems while in prison—many about love and nobility.”
— The recipient was Bonne d'Armagnac, his second wife. In all, Charles would be married three times: first to Isabelle d'Valois, daughter of the King (therefore Charles's cousin) and widow of King Richard II of England; second to Bonne d'Armagnac, daughter of the new head of the party Bernard VII Armagnac; and finally to Marie de Cleves in part of the end of the Burgundian-Armagnac Civil War (interestingly, she was the grandaughter of Burgundy. Yes, that Burgundy.). He and Marie would have three children, including the future King Louis XII of France.
There are also multiple omissions of things that'd be good to note, like who Isabelle was first married to, Richard II; the years of some of these events, and most disappointingly that Charles's mother was named Valentine! The most annoying omission is any form of bibliography. There are no citations, no further reading. This undermines any credibility and leaves the reader stranded. All of this information can be found in the encyclopedia.
If you're interested in Charles and his times and want a well-researched historical novel to get lost in, check out Hella S. Haasse's In a Dark Wood Wandering. I highly recommend it.
(If anything is wrong here, please contact me so I can correct it).
1“A Farewell to Love,” Wikisource, last modified November 2, 2016, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:A_Farewell_to_Love.
2“Thad Morgan, History’s Oldest-Known Valentine Was Written in Prison,” History Channel, last modified February 14, 2018, https://www.history.com/news/historys-oldest-known-valentine-was-written-in-prison.
Friday, March 9, 2018
Persnickety Historian Review - Victoria ITV
ITV's Victoria wrapped up its second season here in the States a couple of weeks ago. It ended with some bombshells-- okay, the revelation of bombshells we the audience already knew about, only now to other characters. We get another heaping of sumptuous settings, pretty costumes, and the lovely Jenna Coleman. Joining the cast this season is Diana Rigg as the Duchess of Buccleuch, playing the same character she does on Game of Thrones, and adding a lot of old-lady sass and wisdom. I love this woman. So, does Victoria reign supreme? Why am I resorting to reviewer cliches? I'll answer one of those in this review, which is more about the series as a whole but most examples are from the recent season.
First, the show as just a show. Every historical drama now has to measure up to Downton Abbey, which, let's face it, isn't going to happen. Victoria definitely succeeds in the sheer gorgeousness of the setting and costuming, bringing to life the early Victorian period (when you think "Victorian," you're probably thinking of Sherlock Holmes era, some forty years after this show). It truly is some eye candy, especially when they visit locations outside of London. Unfortunately storywise, there isn't much to hold my attention.
To put it bluntly, Victoria fails to have the dramatic and emotional depth to be more than another period piece. It tries desperately for a fictional downstairs story, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me and I can't remember any of the servants' names, except for Mr. Penge (also, is it just me or does Buckingham have far too few servants?). The same goes for the upstairs-- even with the Queen I find it hard to become invested in the fictional plotlines. The trouble, I think, comes from there not being an overarching plot with a single goal in mind to connect episodes and make a meaningful season finale (think the "myth arc" vs. the "monster of the week" formula from The X-Files-- some episodes form a series-spanning plot, others are just one-offs). I was very excited to have Ada Lovelace and Isambard Kingdom Brunell guest star, but I felt like this was something special, rather than just other historical figures in a show about history.
Acting-wise, it's a bit hit-or-miss, especially considering historical portrayal. The first season was graced with Rufus Sewell, who is missed, and this season has the wonderful Diana Rigg, who's worth watching the show for alone. Jenna Coleman continues to be a sweet, energetic Queen, but she doesn't reflect Victoria's forceful personality in its more flawed sense. There never seems to be anything really negative from her, she's just a high-spirited monarch here, despite her historical serious temper and obstinateness. Granted, Queen Victoria was a remarkable figure and I'm not sure she ever truly could be fully emulated. Jenna is still enjoyable though, and I don't fault her too much, just the writing. On the other hand, Tom Hughes, Jenna's real-life boyfriend, is a boring and frustrating Albert. Like his portrayal of the Duke of Aumerle in The Hollow Crown version of Richard II (2012), he seems blank at best and sometimes zoned-out. His ongoing borderline power struggle with Victoria and the inaccurate portrayal of their relationship initially being testy rather than love-at-first-sight as it was historically leave them seeming to not be a good match.
Now for the history.
This show is frustrating. Daisy Goodwin, series creator and head writer brags about balancing history and fiction, but I don't think she's done that at all. Historical fiction can be an awesome genre when done well, but to make it so requires attention to detail and the understanding that history is exciting enough on its own and doesn't need embellishment. Goodwin alters things, saying "My rule is that I can change the odd date, move people around here and there, so long as I am faithful to the emotional truth of the characters."1 She goes far beyond that-- she does everything from change the ages of figures, like the Duchess of Bucchleuch (who was actually in her thirties at the time) to creating whole new relationships, as with Alfred Paget and Edward Drummond, who weren't actually in one-- which was disappointing, since they were one of the best parts of the season. The decision to include queer characters was great, if only Goodwin had invented them, or better yet found some in history rather than making up a relationship.
Rather unsurprisingly, some things are made a little more positive or palatable to modern viewers, like the episode on An Gorta Mór-- the Irish Famine. Queen Victoria is portrayed as caring a lot about Ireland, whereas in history she wasn't all that concerned-- she certainly isn't appreciated in Irish history, being called "The Famine Queen." However inaccurate the portrayal is, I do see something good came out of the episode as a whole. British viewers were shocked at the depiction of the Famine, having not been taught much about it.2 This is called a difficult encounter in public history, and it forces us to face something we don't want to think about, and I have to praise the show for doing that, even if Victoria's reaction is sanitized (which is still an issue).
I was, however, surprised to find out that some of the stuff that sounded made-up to me (my specialty isn't this period so I've been doing a lot of fact checking) actually do have basis in fact, like the rumor that Albert is actually a bastard, which did exist. In the show, Uncle Leopold claims he believes he is actually Albert's father. This particular paternity claim, made by David Duff (1972) is iffy at best, but works for the show since Uncle Leopold continues to be the Cigarette Smoking Man of the series. On a more verifiable front, this was the first time I'd heard of Sarah Forbes Bonetta, and I learned more about her after looking her up. That's part of the fun of good historical media, learning about the real thing and maybe being introduced to something new in the process.
Victoria isn't perfect, though it has promise. It's held back by its lack of narrative direction, and more seriously it's marred by Goodwin freely admitting she makes things up but still remains true to the history, not to mention inaccurate portrayals of some serious things, like the Queen's reaction to the Famine. However, it's had some great non-political figures appear, like Ada Lovelace, and it's been the first exposure many people have had to some of the period's more difficult topics. It also has prompted me to research more of this period, if just to know the background. Goodwin says season 3 will explore more "sexual tension" between Victoria and Albert, which I can only guess means Tom Hughes will learn to make some facial expressions, but if it means that there will be a more accurate portrayal of this love story, that'd be worth it. Let's just hope Goodwin, who's based the show more or less off of Victoria's copious personal diaries, will let her subject herself tell the story more in the future.
First, the show as just a show. Every historical drama now has to measure up to Downton Abbey, which, let's face it, isn't going to happen. Victoria definitely succeeds in the sheer gorgeousness of the setting and costuming, bringing to life the early Victorian period (when you think "Victorian," you're probably thinking of Sherlock Holmes era, some forty years after this show). It truly is some eye candy, especially when they visit locations outside of London. Unfortunately storywise, there isn't much to hold my attention.
To put it bluntly, Victoria fails to have the dramatic and emotional depth to be more than another period piece. It tries desperately for a fictional downstairs story, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me and I can't remember any of the servants' names, except for Mr. Penge (also, is it just me or does Buckingham have far too few servants?). The same goes for the upstairs-- even with the Queen I find it hard to become invested in the fictional plotlines. The trouble, I think, comes from there not being an overarching plot with a single goal in mind to connect episodes and make a meaningful season finale (think the "myth arc" vs. the "monster of the week" formula from The X-Files-- some episodes form a series-spanning plot, others are just one-offs). I was very excited to have Ada Lovelace and Isambard Kingdom Brunell guest star, but I felt like this was something special, rather than just other historical figures in a show about history.
Acting-wise, it's a bit hit-or-miss, especially considering historical portrayal. The first season was graced with Rufus Sewell, who is missed, and this season has the wonderful Diana Rigg, who's worth watching the show for alone. Jenna Coleman continues to be a sweet, energetic Queen, but she doesn't reflect Victoria's forceful personality in its more flawed sense. There never seems to be anything really negative from her, she's just a high-spirited monarch here, despite her historical serious temper and obstinateness. Granted, Queen Victoria was a remarkable figure and I'm not sure she ever truly could be fully emulated. Jenna is still enjoyable though, and I don't fault her too much, just the writing. On the other hand, Tom Hughes, Jenna's real-life boyfriend, is a boring and frustrating Albert. Like his portrayal of the Duke of Aumerle in The Hollow Crown version of Richard II (2012), he seems blank at best and sometimes zoned-out. His ongoing borderline power struggle with Victoria and the inaccurate portrayal of their relationship initially being testy rather than love-at-first-sight as it was historically leave them seeming to not be a good match.
Now for the history.
This show is frustrating. Daisy Goodwin, series creator and head writer brags about balancing history and fiction, but I don't think she's done that at all. Historical fiction can be an awesome genre when done well, but to make it so requires attention to detail and the understanding that history is exciting enough on its own and doesn't need embellishment. Goodwin alters things, saying "My rule is that I can change the odd date, move people around here and there, so long as I am faithful to the emotional truth of the characters."1 She goes far beyond that-- she does everything from change the ages of figures, like the Duchess of Bucchleuch (who was actually in her thirties at the time) to creating whole new relationships, as with Alfred Paget and Edward Drummond, who weren't actually in one-- which was disappointing, since they were one of the best parts of the season. The decision to include queer characters was great, if only Goodwin had invented them, or better yet found some in history rather than making up a relationship.
Rather unsurprisingly, some things are made a little more positive or palatable to modern viewers, like the episode on An Gorta Mór-- the Irish Famine. Queen Victoria is portrayed as caring a lot about Ireland, whereas in history she wasn't all that concerned-- she certainly isn't appreciated in Irish history, being called "The Famine Queen." However inaccurate the portrayal is, I do see something good came out of the episode as a whole. British viewers were shocked at the depiction of the Famine, having not been taught much about it.2 This is called a difficult encounter in public history, and it forces us to face something we don't want to think about, and I have to praise the show for doing that, even if Victoria's reaction is sanitized (which is still an issue).
I was, however, surprised to find out that some of the stuff that sounded made-up to me (my specialty isn't this period so I've been doing a lot of fact checking) actually do have basis in fact, like the rumor that Albert is actually a bastard, which did exist. In the show, Uncle Leopold claims he believes he is actually Albert's father. This particular paternity claim, made by David Duff (1972) is iffy at best, but works for the show since Uncle Leopold continues to be the Cigarette Smoking Man of the series. On a more verifiable front, this was the first time I'd heard of Sarah Forbes Bonetta, and I learned more about her after looking her up. That's part of the fun of good historical media, learning about the real thing and maybe being introduced to something new in the process.
Victoria isn't perfect, though it has promise. It's held back by its lack of narrative direction, and more seriously it's marred by Goodwin freely admitting she makes things up but still remains true to the history, not to mention inaccurate portrayals of some serious things, like the Queen's reaction to the Famine. However, it's had some great non-political figures appear, like Ada Lovelace, and it's been the first exposure many people have had to some of the period's more difficult topics. It also has prompted me to research more of this period, if just to know the background. Goodwin says season 3 will explore more "sexual tension" between Victoria and Albert, which I can only guess means Tom Hughes will learn to make some facial expressions, but if it means that there will be a more accurate portrayal of this love story, that'd be worth it. Let's just hope Goodwin, who's based the show more or less off of Victoria's copious personal diaries, will let her subject herself tell the story more in the future.
1 Daisy
Goodwin, "Victoria writer Daisy Goodwin: how I struck a balance
between drama and historical accuracy," RadioTimes, accessed
March 6,
2018, http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-03-03/victoria-season-2-finale-itv/.
2“British TV viewers shocked by Famine scenes in Victoria,” Raidió Teilifís Éireann, accessed March 8, 2018, https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/1003/909290-british-tv-viewers-shocked-by-famine-scenes-in-victoria/.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Sonnet 116 - I Want to Know What Love Is
Let
me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
Quatrain 1 begins this study of what love is with a list of the things that should not happen with love. “Let me not the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments” (116.1-2) is a direct reference to legal barriers to marriage but can be taken in a more general sense to mean an obstacle. “Love is not love / Which alters when it alteration finds” (116.2-3), meaning love does not try to change the perceived faults of the person who is loved. If it does, then it is not love. It also does not bend “with the remover to remove.” The other will still be loved through hardship and will not be changed by the remover, time (116.4). Time’s role in love will be expanded upon in quatrain 3.
Quatrain
2’s description of love’s characteristics employs nautical
imagery. It is “an ever-fixed mark” (116.5), bringing to mind a
landmark such as a lighthouse or some other stationary landmark to
guide sailors even during storms. Likewise, love is constant, even in
the face of figurative “tempests” (116.6), and like the stars
used to navigate, love is the “start to every wand’ring bark. It
can be measured, like the stars, but its true value is “unknown”
(116.7-8).
Quatrain
3 expands upon love against the “remover” time as mentioned in
line 4. “Love’s not time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks /
Within his bending sickle’s compass come” (116.9-10). The
physical world, especially the human body is under the control of
time, but as said in the first quatrain love does not “bend” or
change with time. The “compass” in line 10 is both a description
of the scythe carried by Time personified and a callback to the
nautical navigational imagery of the previous quatrain. Another
callback occurs in line 11, “Love alters not with his brief hours
and weeks” (116.11) returning to lines 2 and 3 in the first
quatrain, “Love is not love / Which alters when it alteration
finds” (116.2-3). Ultimately, love lasts to “the edge of doom”--
doomsday, or the end of time (116.12).
The
ending couplet is a challenge to the reader to in turn challenge the
poet. “If this be error and upon me proved / I never write, nor no
man ever loved” (116.13-14). If he is wrong in his description of
love, then he has never written anything and love is not real, just
as he said in lines 1 and 2 to not let him “admit impediments” to
the “marriage of true minds.” His claim that if he is in error he
has never written is bold, especially considering the previous 115
sonnets he has just written to a fair youth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)