On the Confederacy of Genius

-->

When I do interviews about being an author, the often-asked question is “What is your favorite novel?”  That’s always a tough question to answer, and for me, I’m inspired by almost all fiction and non-fiction when it comes to my writing.  Films inspire me as well, with the many years of migraine headaches had me looking at a screen less stressful then reading words in books, so for many years, I didn’t read many books. 

I come from a family of educators from my mother’s side of the family, and my aunt, her sister, now a retired high school history teacher, is well known to us for being well read and never reading fiction.  But I remember her telling me in the early 80s about the book “A Confederacy of Dunces.”  She told me to make sure I read it, and guaranteed it would have my side aching with laughter. 

Impressed with this recommendation from a family member that reads only historic texts and made this novel an exception, back then I went with her recommendation.  I didn’t laugh as I read.  I didn’t giggle.  I threw the book down, laughing uncontrollably with tears running down my face, only to pick it up again to start the second chapter.  When I met my future husband, our early relationship wasn’t hurt by me seeing a copy of this one-of-a-kind novel proudly displayed with his hardback copies of “Lord of the Rings.” 

To summarize the Pulitzer-Prize winning novel, published and rewarded following the tragic suicide of author John Kennedy Toole (see the forward by Walker Percy), the lead character Ignatius Reilly begins the story standing on Canal Street in New Orleans, obese, dressed in out-of-season bizarre clothing, looking for distaste in others.  From there, a large cast of characters are introduced while the reader laughs through the pages, finding out in the end how and why each character has an important but hilarious role in the story. 

When I think about “A Confederacy of Dunces” I get angry with myself about forgetting to mention it in more interviews.  For a novel so “unforgettable” how can one forget it?  I think it’s because there’s nothing like it out there.  I lived in the New Orleans area for a while and can connect Toole’s descriptions with the housing and the details of the city still present today.  In checking about films based upon this outstanding work, like so many originals, Hollywood isn’t ready to take the leap of faith to make a film from it.  As I think about it, while it’s disappointing the film industry hasn’t tried, but with this level of masterpiece the translation into film would be a most difficult task.

Readers of all genres, if you haven’t read “A Confederacy of Dunces” I highly recommend that you check this out.  I haven’t met anyone that didn’t like it yet, though naysayers are everywhere.  In thinking of the author Toole committing suicide because no one would publish his work, I think now he would like to see laughter from his work than the sadness it came from.  Meet Ignatius Reilly, the zany cast of characters, and as they say in New Orleans, “Let the Good Times Roll.”

On “Step Back” Stories

"The Exorcist"

Growing up in rural poverty gave me few advantages, but one of them was when my mother decided to end the disaster she and her daughters were headed for and went back to college while I was in upper grade school.  From then on she emphasized reading as much as possible, and would bring home books for me to read from astronomy to gothic cathedrals. 

My mother also tended to let me read bestselling novels before I was a teenager.  I’ve written before that I learned a bit too much by reading bestsellers so young, as ill language uttered by me clueless to its meaning left a couple of forgettable public moments.  But overall, I learned more good than bad, and Mom often would review some of the books’ contents, especially if it were considered to be controversial.

Needless to say, my favorite book at the time was “The Exorcist” by William Peter Blatty.  Years passed before I ever saw the film since I was much too young when it came out and no one that would take kids to films would take us to that one.  To me, reading the book was like knowing a secret the other kids didn’t.  I was too young to really absorb the dark messages of the novel, so I read aloud most of the icky vomit effects to my sister and whispered the disturbing religious parts that were “a bad thing.”

As adult, I now enjoy this horror film now considered a classic, not only for the disturbing religious story, but also for the message that screams through louder than all of the demons do at once while trapped in young Regan’s body.  By the end of the film, I see the point is not about the girl, not about the demonic possession, but it’s about the young priest that had lost his faith.  This point shines as the elder priest had the faith, but not the physical ability to battle the demons, but the younger priest had only himself, and found redemption in the end by giving himself to possession and saving the girl by destroying himself.

I think of stories like this as “step back” stories, because to get the message one has to look beyond the intensity to see the big picture the writer is giving us.  Sometimes with so much emotional and dramatic detail, it’s easy to get lost, but when we see the message ring clear, it remains with us forever, as great stories do.

On Our Lifetime Revolution

"Revolutionary Road"

I’ve blogged in the past about the famous “Blame it on the ‘burbs” novel “Revolutionary Road” by Richard Yates.  Published in the early 1960s, it captured the constricted lives of American families living in the 1950s post WWII era, with emphasis placed on family, safe neighborhoods, and the husband supporting the household while the wife remained home and raised the children.  In the novel, as well as the film, the tragic ending turns many off, and I admit it takes another look to appreciate the very strong message that Yates gave us in his novel.

For a brief summary, the couple Frank and April Wheeler lives in these traditional middle class conditions with two children, and she gets an idea to move to Paris to live.  They have a history of believing they were special, with some destination to greater achievements than their middle class peers.  Frank goes along with it to calm his wife’s raging temper, but doubts escalate with a job promotion and come to a head when April becomes unexpectedly pregnant.  As their marriage falls apart, with Frank unable to deal with April’s temper, and April realizing Frank had no more aspiring ambition other than suburban life, the story ends in tragedy when she attempts to abort her pregnancy.

First, critics still applaud Yates as a writer that had the nerve not to “rescue” his characters.  In the film, “Titanic” fans of the Winslet/DiCaprio couple saw a let down of the opposite of forbidden love in “Revolutionary Road.” To me, DiCaprio gave one of his best dramatic performances since “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” (His best work by far).

Going back to the message left us by Yates, I remember the days when I was finishing college and along with my friends I thought there were better places to be, better people to be with than where I was, in Mississippi.  Our circle spoke often of moving to large cities like New York, Atlanta, or Chicago.  When I graduated from college with a degree as a lab technician, I got a day shift job in Fort Worth Texas by a telephone interview.  When my personal life fell apart, instead of staying home, I moved to the New Orleans area.  I admit my time as a swinging single in a big city was well spent learning a lot about life in general, every night is not a party, bills must be paid, and Mr. Right doesn’t arrive on a white horse.

When I met Mr. Right, I found myself back in my home state of Mississippi, where I least expected it.  Did my dreams come true?  Yes, but not like I actually dreamed them to be, which is what real life is really about.  I hit milestones with marriage, medical training, and the tough realization that I’d never have children.

“Revolutionary Road” tells us that some point in our maturity, we must stop dreaming and accept what we have as our life.  Can we keep dreaming afterwards?  Of course!  Like the Wheelers, we all think we’re special in some way; if we didn’t we’d never do anything at all.  What Yates reminds us is that dreams can make us lose our way and bring destruction the point everything can be lost.

Guest post: Setting Some Facts Straight: My Review of “The White Queen” by Andy McMillin

I'm happy to use my blog space for a very intelligent young lady, who studies medieval history, to give her take on the series "The White Queen."  I thank her for allowing me to post her insight and detailed review on my blog and see the link for the review on her tumblr site: 

http://andymcmillin.tumblr.com/

Andy McMillin

I, like many for the last 10 weeks or so have been watching Starz “The White Queen.” At first, I struggled to get through the first episode due to drugged stupor from surgery but once I finally watched it, I was curious as to what the series had to offer.

The series is based off the book of similar title set during the War of The Roses in England in 1450s or so. It’s a medieval period themed series: my cup of tea basically. So me and my knowledge, biting my tongue many of times, and mind; ended up watching the show in its entirety. In the end I was amazed. I had read mixed reviews, and was actually quiet shocked of how the series was perceived by many audiences. In the end, I certainly did not follow the tone of the journalists who wrote the reviews. Still I wonder what was put in their drink that day. Did they forget that film is like any art form, it is interpretative and first and foremost it is art. Criticizing it won’t do you a bit of good. The overall consensus: the show left me wanting more, and a with a few sleepless nights with the vision of Richard III dead body on the ground….I got a little freaked out…. Shock factor achieved there Aneurin.

The acting. Words don’t even come close. We are introduced to Elizabeth and Edward first. The Anne and Richard, played by Faye Marsay and Aneurin Barnard. They stole the show. As well as Amanda Hale who plays Margaret Beauford and Stanely. I am uncertain of the actors name. The twists, the emotions, the technique, they all used, especially Aneurin, is just captivating. I remember watching the first episode where Richard III is really a main character and I was just floored. His performance just blew me away. Give him a prize someone. I have seen a ton of period movies and not, and "The White Queen" just blew it out of the park. Bravo! Now, the show is over and I miss my medieval fix!

With that being said, we get to my review of the series. I understand liberties were taken with some aspects of the filming, i.e. lack of armor, clothing, and other details, (red paint on the window frame) which being a trained medievalist, I didn’t complain and just let it slide. As far as critiquing, the only real problem I had was some of the themes addressed in the story line. There is just not even close or loose historical base to have made the claims. It is a little bewildering to me as a historian and a scholar, that they were even suggested. As a result, it created confusion amongst many viewers and their views of specific characters, especially of Richard III. Of note, I did have a blast helping my peers understand the period after the show was over that following night. 

Now back to Richard. He is probably the most misunderstood of all the English Plantagenet kings. A lot of it traces back to what happened after and before his death.
Now my gripes. First, I had a slight issue with the relationship that was suggested in the show between Lizzy (Elisabeth of York) and Richard. This more than likely never happened, actually it didn’t. It was a result of gossip and rumor. Anne and Richard actually shared a bed up until she got ill. This wasn’t very common in that day. King’s and Queen’s had separate chambers. If he had had an affair, she would have been the first to know, since they shared a bed up until the end, when it was feared that he too would become ill.

Is there any evidence? No. There is only one letter in existence that Lizzy wrote that is more than likely a misinterpretation or a fake. It is also know, or it should be that if Lizzy was educated, she would have known about courtly romance and courtly love, introduced by Marie de France. This needs to be taken into consideration. It greatly impacted writing at the time, as well as composition. When looking at her writings, these are some of the aspects that pop out and yes, could be misinterpreted quite easily for “love” not “admiration,” which in fact it was. Richard was planning a wedding for her. As a responsible and thankful niece, of course he would be in admiration of her; he is helping her plan her future marriage. This is a big deal and an expensive one.
Some notes about the letter. The letter found by George Buck, who lived about 100 years after Richard’s death. It claimed to have “have seen a letter written by Elizabeth of York to John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, shortly before the death of Queen Anne Neville, in which Elizabeth declared her love for Richard III and her hope of becoming his wife. In Buck’s words, the letter asks Norfolk “to be a mediator for her to the King, in behalf of the marriage propounded between them”, who, as she wrote, was her “onely joy and maker in this world”, and that she was his in heart and thought: “withall insinuating that the better part of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die.” The letter, if it ever existed, is now lost.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Buck) Now as a scholar, it is quite interesting that a letter oh 100 years later emerges, then disappears. Something in this is not right. Hence, why it is thought that the letter was a fake, or misinterpretation, and oh by the way.. it’s missing now too.

Another source, that documents and discusses this letter as well as the information received from the Croyland Chronicles; the book Richard, Return of the King, by Patricia J. Collins, the same letter cited, and is also discussed. She also brings similar points about the letter, and the fact that Richard repeatedly publicly denied any such plans to marry his niece. Yet rumors circulated like wild fire after Anne’s death and did not help the situation. It was known is that he wished to remarry soon, as he had no heir to the throne at that time, he needed some job security. But it would make sense that the rumor mill went overboard, despite the good that Richard did. The game was to the defeated the one who is your opponent make them a victim of libel or slander, gossip and rumor and chip at them until they break. The rumors continued after his death under the rule of the new king, he had to establish power. And of course, they had to clean up the rumors of any public notion of what people once thought of Elizabeth of York when she married Henry Tudor. She had to be fit to marry a king. Place the blame on the dead king, he is dead so he can’t defend himself; easy scapegoat. 

What do we take away from this? Just because it ends up in the daily newspaper, doesn’t mean it is fact or true. The educated public is a very small pool and most are the clergy, rumors are what makes the wheel and the power go around.
Finally, the princes in the tower. This is probably one of todays and in this time period, the biggest unsolved mystery to date. The show suggests that Elizabeth swapped young Richard out, with an imposter. That so did not happen. There are doctor records that show proof he was in the tower and he was ill. The gossip flew when they disappeared, again, who was unpopular? Richard III he was blamed for their disappearance. In defending Richard, it is questioned that Elisabeth’s loyalty eventually switched to him, but it was too late for obvious reasons, for him to save his throne. The simple fact that it did shift to him, is an indication that he was not responsible for their disappearance or why would she have changed loyalties if in fact he had something to do with the disappearances? It would not make sense, as what little evidence we have suggests. 

The likely culprits? Margaret Beauford, and Stanley. They both wanted Tudor on that throne, and history shows that there is pile of bodies to that lead to that “iron throne”. Now, hypothetically, it is possible that she switched one of her children. But the biggest factual and theoretical problems that historians face today, is there is just no evidence anything that even suggests or supports who murdered the children, or in fact that they were even murdered in the first place. My personal theory; one died, the other more than likely died as well. From someone’s hand, no, from illness, yes. I vote tuberculosis; we already have a few dead of the disease currently in the show.

An article in The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/feb/05/princes-in-tower-staying-under), discusses the urn that was found in the tower with some bones of two children found at the bottom of a stair case during a renovation, that could possibly hold some clues to this mystery. Since the discovery of Richard III and DNA testing of his remains, a suggestion was made to have those bones DNA tested but the request was denied. This actually puts a very interesting twist on the plot. The Church of England, and the Queen were even consulted and supported the denial. Perhaps they really do know what happened, it’s some big secret? We might never know. Is this enough to prove Richard III responsible, no. He was a very loyal, and catholic and held the church in great esteem, why would he commit a mortal sin on a child, he had other problems to worry about, and they were great by far. He went to great lengths to deny public accusations, where the Croyland Chronicles suggests, as well as the York House Books, as the one responsible for their disappearance. Again, the blame landed on a king whose competition wanted power, and if they could break him down piece by piece, they would and to take what they wanted in the end, that being the throne.
History always seems to have a different picture, than its interpretation or artistic departure. This is why I enjoy film. Sometimes it is nice to take a departure from what we know and to let it go. 

My overall opinion of the show was it was terrific, beautiful, and just wonderfully written from an artistic perspective. From a historical perspective, it leads a lot into much needed discussion. But this is good for people like me. I love to teach others about what I love and know. There are so many aspects of medieval life that just one show cannot even begin to understand its complexity. It’s a complex but fascinating period. My biggest advice to people wanting to learn about the period or the people in it? Do your research wisely, and really look at who your sources have been written by. If you are reading about Richard III, if it is later for example 1600’s, the opinion will be painted poorly. This is something we are discovering today and is unfortunately the case in so much of our documentation. Sometimes a little of rewriting the past has to take place.

Finally, take a step back and try to think like that medieval person who wrote the material especially if it’s a primary source. Many angles need to be thought of when you go read into that piece. Who are they in favor with, what is their position at court, what is their education level, and are they a man of importance. To look at the life and times of individuals of the past, some of our best sources are the actual legal documents and letters of that time. For example “The Paston Letters.” They give anyone a perfect window into that time. The world of the Middle Ages is a fascinating time period and that was clearly depicted in the show “The White Queen.” It is a show worth its weight in gold. I highly suggest it.

Starz “The White Queen” is currently up for a People’s Choice Award for 2014.

Also vote for Aneurin Barnard for his role of Richard III

~ Andrea C. S. McMillin, BA Medieval Studies w/ History U.C. Davis and current scholar
October 26, 2013

Richard’s Offer

The lead character of the Gastar Series has a final conversation with Richard III.

 

As Richard pulled the imps away from him in the blazes in the bottom of the fire pit in Hell, he felt his strength waning moment by moment slowly, as if he were dying over a thousand years.  Some of the demonic creatures had faces familiar to him, like his beloved wife Anne, and his brothers Edward and George.  Sometimes he felt a whip lash across his back, but never had any erosion of his clothing or skin.  The pain from the wound ended almost instantly, replaced with more pain, emotional or physical. 

At the tip of this nose, an arrow whizzed by, piercing one of the larger demons through the head.  Other arrows pinned the small imps into the rocky bottom of the pit.  Through the fire, Richard saw Shevata walk toward him, her bow slung around her shoulder, and carrying a ball of blue fire in the palm of her hand.  The imps began to scatter as she threw the fire towards them, making a clearing.

“Zermon sent me down to check on you.”  Said Shevata.  She motioned to an opening.  “Follow me.” 

Richard followed with hesitation.  “What do you want?”

“I want nothing.  Zermon at this moment is angry with one of your descendants named Henry the eighth.  Right now he is resurrecting and burning him for the fifth time.”

“I don’t know that Henry and my line ended with me.”  Said Richard.

Shevata shrugged.  “Well, whatever, he is, Zermon thinks he’s worse than you and ordered me to give you an offer.”  They reached the outside of the pit to the vastness of hell, a red sky with miles of nothing but a black pebble surface.  Shevata smiled.  “This is the scary part of the underworld.  Think about being trapped out here for eternity.  It almost makes the fire pits appealing.”

“What are you offering me?”  Asked Richard.

“Tell me what happened to you.”

“I wanted the best for England.  All of my life I’d been in service and I wanted to serve, not rule.  Instead, I was blamed for the murder of two boys I intended to raise and accused of bedding my niece.”

Shevata raised her eyebrows.  “Don’t tell Zermon about your niece.  He may approve of that.  How did you die?”

“A rival attacked to take my throne.  In battle, my own men changed sides and abandoned me to die.” 

“There must be a reason.”  Said Shevata.

“Everyone was so eager to believe the worst about me.  Do you understand what that’s like?”  Said Richard.

Shevata smiled.  “The worst of me is usually true.  Rumors don’t put you down here.  What did?”

“I executed my sister-in-law’s brother and her son.  I thought they were traitors.”  He sighed, shaking his head.  “It was a mistake.”  He looked back at her.  “Why are you here?” 

Shevata said, “I murdered the last high priest of the God of the Dead.  So I’m Zermon's prisoner.”

“What can you offer me?”  Said Richard.

“There is only one way out.”  Said Shevata, loading a small black crossbow.  “Do you want it?”

Tears ran down his face.  “This would truly be my end, wouldn’t it?”

Shevata nodded.  “I’m sorry.  Your legacy may change, but it will take a very long time, many kings from now.”

He turned his back to her and closed his eyes.  “Do it.” He said.

She fired.  He disappeared with his soul in a flash of light.  

"I'm sorry Richard."  She whispered to herself.

Non-Spoiler: Review of “The White Princess” by Phillipa Gregory

The young Elizabeth narrates her story and reflects upon her life, very different from her mother.  She was raised as a Princess in the powerful House of York.  Her family ensured that she was educated to be a queen as much as the young Prince would be raised to be a king; so she knew her music, books, sewing, and even some basics of cooking.  In every fairy tale of a Princess, she lands almost every detail.

The detail she misses is her Prince that isn’t a toad, but a King.  Henry VII does marry her under specific details given by her mother Margaret “Regina” (not Beaufort anymore) who has given herself a new title almost the length of my blog article.  Margaret leaves nothing to chance, and she and her son aren’t sympathetic with a princess who loved a fallen king more than she should have in all ways.  It takes time for the young Elizabeth to deal with the fact that her man lost and she is a spoil of war.

Her beautiful mother, Elizabeth Woodville, doesn’t disappear.  She’s a tremendous help to her daughter, as Jaquetta was for her, present for childbirth and emotionally giving as much help as she can.  But girls are not women, Elizabeth and Margaret have more in common than we realize in “The White Queen” as the scheming continues with young Elizabeth sitting in the middle of drama that she isn’t really privy to and not a real part of. 

Henry understands immediately that a noble battle to become King and being a King are two entirely different feats; the latter infinitely more difficult.  The English people must learn the Tudor dynasty, which does not happen overnight.  Like Richard, he thinks he’s being the good guy but doesn’t know whom his enemies and friends are.  He is proud of his lovely queen, but like most men, finds any woman pining for another man to be a turnoff.  Over time and childbirths later, they find common ground in their children, like many married couples.

“The White Princess” carries the story into the beginning of the Tudor rule of England.  The young Elizabeth is witness to many points of intrigue, and though is a protected princess and a queen later, the reader learns that during such times, no one is really protected.

On Prince Richard

"The White Queen" Henry Tudor

As “The White Queen” series wrapped up, as usual, I had to watch the finale about four times to take in all of the details before making up my mind what inspired me the most about the series.  Overall, I found it enjoyable as well as Ms. Gregory’s books.  As we fans tweeted about our obsession from one episode to the next, I’ll gently remind the historians:  We know it isn’t actual history.  Now, may we all sit and enjoy the show and the rest of you use the remote. 

On Twitter, the most popular character amongst the crowd I interacted with clearly was Richard III, played by non-ugly ace young actor Aneurin Barnard.  While I like cute actors as much as the next girl, I think the complexity of his character from loyal/boyish love/good husband/villain/murderer/cheater/loser reeled in the audience, which was mostly women, I suspect.  But that is part of the fantasy; to bring history to life, and toss in enough sympathy and good looks to interest the viewers, then watch the downfall.

After my fourth viewing of the finale, like all stories, it’s not the cute guys; it’s the characters that stay with me.  As Phillipa Gregory shined light upon the women during that time, she also reminded us that war, the bloodshed, is men’s work.  Regardless of who’s in the right, or in the wrong, the most ambitious, the cleverest or the most naïve of women they have no say when steel hits steel and rules are thrown out and the last man standing will be the King.

So for some analysis:  Richard had it all.  Let’s assume he didn’t kill the Princes in the Tower.  Still, he had a strong following in the north of England, the Yorks were still powerful, Wales leaned toward him, and he was a veteran soldier and skilled at putting down rebellious nobles like Buckingham and loyal in laws and innocent nephews (he put Antony Rivers and Richard Grey to death), so he didn’t have much to fear from an unknown invader with an unknown last name.  On the personal side, with the death of his wife and son, he had plenty nearby to soften the blow of non-loss to him, favoring his niece from her famously fertile mother to be his next queen.   When one has pure confidence does one need faith?

Enter Henry Tudor, a young man with a prisoner-hired army with only his uncle Jasper and his pious, insane mother to support him.  I found myself moved in the series when he landed in Wales and scooped up the sand and I realized all he had was faith.  Instead of running, he and his uncle took a deep breath and went to battle, and their faith was rewarded by wild card Stanley.  Richard’s lack of faith was rewarded by being pulled off his horse by footmen and being hacked to death, stripped naked and his crown handed to Henry Tudor. 

“The Prince,” written after this time, teaches that power must be taken completely so nothing is left to chance.  Faith is not a Machiavellian trait, even when such are people of the cloth.  While we viewers are sympathetic to Richard, we watch him lose his way.  Faith is when you look and see nothing and still keep going.  Our ancestors risked their lives with nothing but faith that so we are free today.  This story serves us as a reminder.