2/15/2001
The Oxford
Illustrated History of the British Monarchy by John Cannon and Ralph
Griffiths
Presuming that Malitida’s coffin was commissioned
by her son is strange that no mention is made of her second husband is made on
the tomb.
I wonder why implication of
treason, against the monarch didn’t include he forcing of monarch’s younger
daughters. The older daughters make
sense for forcing an elder to marry could have used the succession but why not
extend to other female siblings.
Perhaps George II”s disliked for
his eldest is because that Frederick wanted to disconnect Hanover from
England. It seems a shame that he was so
disliked. Esp. when Cumberland seemed so preferred , still
butchered the Scots after Culloden.
On George II, “with no mistress
to distract” (493) he focused on political maneuvering. So it is good to have a mistress to keep one
busy? Authors tend to underrate the
women and overrate the men. Women seem
to be mistreated stupid or virginial, yet the tolerance that goes on for the
men and that statement about the mothers.
Neglects to tell the reader why
Wallis Simpson would make an inadequate queen. It is implied because of her possible
barrenness and her divorced status, but where those the only reasons? The same is true of Princess Margaret’s first
lover. What was the objection to him?
Authors goose over Queen
Elizabeath II undoubtedly because she is still alive and they do want to
offend. How can Elizabeth II blame her
uncle when her father died of lung cancer?
[Note: the book didn’t fully explore the connection fully. But now, I can understand it].
It is strange that the author’s
tend to believe/show that the female monarchs had less power/importance than their
male counterpoints. Albert got his own little insert, the only
non-rules toe get one. None of the queen
consorts got one. What makes Albert so
special? Writers seem to suggest that
female rulers were controlled by male minsters or husbands [Note: this is
not to downplay the importance of Albert on Queen Victoria’s reign. But there were queens who were also
influential]
Why is talking
about the Queen consorts, the one becomes harsh of women if they are not
perfectly submissive and non-complaining.
Really in the far background.
River speaks harshly about the monarchy.
2/25/2001
Faver Season by Barbara Hambly
[Note: Ben
January Series Book 2]
Not as good as the first one, but
sequels rarely are. I like the
introduction of historical events. I
hope that Rose appears in the next book.
It’s good that Hambly did not rush the feelings between January and
Rose. They didn’t move too fast. More fortunate with Hannibal and Shaw.
Ben doesn’t understand his
mother. Yes she is very Monterey
centered and non empathic but it s because of her that both he and his sisters
are free. She saw to that. She was born and raised a slave. And she pulled
herself up from the bottom f course she is going to be very concerned about
money. It is because o her that Ben
could have become what he did. She to
fight for everything. She thinks her
children are more than able to take care of themselves.
2/27/01
Graveyard Dust by Barbara Hambly
[Note: Ben January Series Book 3]
From
the afterword’s, where Hambly is briefly talking about Voodoo altars, “I’ve
seen a black plastic statue of Dath Vader on one such alter, and its hard to
see how that symbol of integration power and evil could be consider out of
place” (405). That is so cool. [Note: a percentage of UK police officers identify
Jedi as their religion]
As
equally good as the first one. Nice to see not only the return of Rose and Hannibal
and Shaw but also Augustus and Madeline.
Though readers would not have a clue to why the marriage is odd as
Ben says of it. [Note: this is
because it is a lesbian marriage in pre-Civil War New Orleans. Augustus is really a woman posing as man.] This is undoubtedly done not to spoilt
the first novel.
It’s
nice to see Ben reaching some type of understanding of his mother and perhaps
the reason for Livia’s disowning of Olympe is because of Olympe spit on what Livia had struggled for. For instance, she charges January rent but
accepts him.
Also
nice to see Ben Confronting his own prejudices
in regards to sister’s religion and her practices.
The plot
itself is very good with the right amount of unsureness over whether not Isaiah
is alive. Also nice see that while two for
the bad guys in the novel were white at least one was a person of color, s it
will be less obvious as opposed to the previous two books.
Book
seemed a little more encompassing that then second one with more attention to
some of the finer details. For instance,
Ben and Hannibal betting on which pair of men would be the first to duel.
Again
the like he fact that the romance between Rose and Ben is not rushed,
especially since Rose’s past, her rape is being dealt with. But the relationship has progressed where he
is thinking about her as much as he is Akshaya [Note: the character’s first
wife, who died during a plague]. But he also no longer feels guilty for having
feelings for someone else.
3/2/2001
Murcheston: The Wolf’s Tale by David Holland
Seemed
dull and disjointed. Lacking
somehow. Waiting for something, anything
to happen. Couldn’t finish it. Too predictable and th author relies too much
on the reader wanting to see Darnley’s madness or beastly surface. Darnley’s journal is not enough to do this.
3/5/2001
Knight With Armor by Alfred Duggan
Anne
raises a good point about whether she should kill instead of falling into enemy
hands. That’s’ what I never understand
about some of the martyrs. If suicide is
a sin and the martyrs are given two choices – convert or die? If you lie about a the giving up the faith to
avoid death, is that sin? A lesser sin? And isn’t your soul between you and god? Event the worshipping of false idols could
have been dealt with. For the Jewish had
some prohibitions. Why then are the martyrs
revered for committing what does seem like a strange form of suicide? Is suicide okay under certain circumstances? Or is chastity less important than
faith? What about he night who kills his
wife to protect her chastity (accepting according to the priest, but the knight
fails to die on the field of battle and is taken prisoner).
Duggan
seems to be mocking the emptiness of the Crusades as at the same time he is
trying to be historically accurate.
The
difference between this book and The Iron Lance is that the in Iron
Lance the crusades are going to be horrific, that’s a bad idea. Everyone knows this. But in this book, a little of Roger’s belief is
transmitted to the reader. This allows one to watch Roger try to find
his way with a degree of pity. Roger is
the product of his time and era, but he also has ahigh degree of honor that is lacking
in those around him. He even differs
from this brother and father, neither of which would have accepted what Roger
does. Roger is simple but he tries to
act from a defense of honor. His
disillusion is not complete by the end of the novel, thought he closing is very
adapt, “the pilgrims was accomplished” (319).
Roger accept people on the face of things too readily, he seems to lack
the ability to read a person.
Part of
this is because of his young age but and because of his desire for honor. He is a man in the wrong place and his tale
is tragic because he does not succeed.
He dies with les than he started.
He dies nameless and unarmored.
He has been mocked. The tale
seems more realistic than the iron lance.
Comments
Post a Comment