![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
A link and a book review ("Katherine" by Anya Seton)
Because sometimes life loves serendipity, yesterday I came across this article about Hedy Lamarr. Someone really needs to write that Yuletide story where she and a few other unlikely Hollywood suspects fight crime in the 40s and 50s, with Hedy as the inventor of amazing gadgets.
Meanwhile, I've read Anya Seton's novel 'Katherine', which various kind people in my virtual social circle reccommended as the definite historical novel about Katherine Swynford. It's from the 1950s - which one notices, and I don't mean that in a snide way - there's just a part of its style that makes you notice -, and compellingly written, though not surprisingly I have a few nitpicks. Most of all, though, I was pleasantly surprised when it turned that I was wrong about something right at the start, when I thought Anya Seton's Katherine would be a standard historical novel heroine who does not want to get married except for love (never mind how standard this was for the day) and would hold only "modern" views. Which turned out not to be the case. True, Katherine does have the standard "do not want!" reaction to her husband, but her personality gets fleshed out after the marriage, and she tries her best to make it work (without falling miraculously in love). She's not automatically adored by all the servants or villagers (and certainly not the serfs); on the contrary, they and she remain on hostile terms for years for reasons understandable from both sides. She doesn't magically know that serfdom is wrong and has the very privileged (and realistic for a lady in her position) "but what are they upset about, they should just be faithful good servants, and then all is fine" reaction to the building up of the peasant's uprising, and it isn't until she actually experiences the uprising itself (which includes John of Gaunt's London residence getting burned to the ground) and by accident and various plot devices ends up among the peasants that she clues in to just how badly their situation is.
The novel also does a great job showing how important and ever present religion was for people on every level of society in the middle ages, and not in a cliché "evil fanatical preacher shouts 'Witch!' at heroine" way. Given that Katherine's brother-in-law is Geoffrey Chaucer, I'm not surprised the author couldn't resist featuring pilgrimages (and not just to Canterbury), but Julian of Norwich showing up was unexpected and nicely done. It's also part of an ingenious way of the author giving Katherine something to do during those years before Constance of Aragon's death when John of Gaunt had returned to his wife, and making that something an important part of Katherine's character development.
However, and this leads me to a nitpick, Anya Seton invented an alternate reason for Hugh Swynford's death that is an indispensable part of what happenes later and the decision Katherine makes. Fair enough; it's a novel, not a biography. And the passages where Katherine deals with what happens are truly powerful. However, what's not fair is that the author pulls this off via a plot device character who only exists to perform a certain action and then is unceremoniously dispensed with. This made the narrative uneven for me, which it wouldn't have been had this character been allowed to develop and breathe, and exist once he's fulfilled that particular purpose. In fact, it would have been tremendously interesting to see both Katherine and John interact with him post facto and knowing the truth.
My other nitpick isn't really one in that I'm fairly certain this is my fault and not the author's, but I'm not sure her John of Gaunt works for me. She goes out of her way to not idealize him, that's not the problem, or rather: I believe the flaws, but I don't really believe the virtues, and that in turn makes selling me on the central relationship between him and Katherine tricky.
(Or maybe Susan Howatch's version in Wheel of Fortune as the ultimate flawed-yet-sympathetic John has spoiled me for all other versions.)
Memorable other characters include Katherine's first husband Hugh, her immensely practical sister Philippa (the one who's married to Chaucer), Joan of Kent and Chaucer himself. Something that's striking if you've come, as I do, from rather recent Richard II viewings and delvings into Shakespearean fanfiction is that John's oldest son, the future Henry IV., hardly shows up at all (Katherine has more interaction with his sister Elizabeth, and of course with her own children both by Hugh and by John). Richard does show up now and then, as a mercurial spoiled brat who can be nice when the mood suits him but has zilch empathy for his people. Anya Seton says in the afterword that supposedly Tom Swynford (Katherine's son from her first marriage) was in charge of the castle where Richard very likely was starved to death, which was news to me. (But explains why Susan Howatch had his modern day equivalent be ultra loyal to Harry Godwin, aka her Henry IV., and provide him with an alibi for the night in which her version of Richard dies.)
Outstanding sequences: definitely the entire peasant's uprising, which Seton caps with the "serfs you are and serfs you will remain" quote; also the death of Blanche, John's first wife, which in her version is by plague; and Katherine becoming a pilgrim.
All in all: I'm not sure about the "definite" part, but this was certainly a very readable and interesting novel about Katherine Swynford.
Meanwhile, I've read Anya Seton's novel 'Katherine', which various kind people in my virtual social circle reccommended as the definite historical novel about Katherine Swynford. It's from the 1950s - which one notices, and I don't mean that in a snide way - there's just a part of its style that makes you notice -, and compellingly written, though not surprisingly I have a few nitpicks. Most of all, though, I was pleasantly surprised when it turned that I was wrong about something right at the start, when I thought Anya Seton's Katherine would be a standard historical novel heroine who does not want to get married except for love (never mind how standard this was for the day) and would hold only "modern" views. Which turned out not to be the case. True, Katherine does have the standard "do not want!" reaction to her husband, but her personality gets fleshed out after the marriage, and she tries her best to make it work (without falling miraculously in love). She's not automatically adored by all the servants or villagers (and certainly not the serfs); on the contrary, they and she remain on hostile terms for years for reasons understandable from both sides. She doesn't magically know that serfdom is wrong and has the very privileged (and realistic for a lady in her position) "but what are they upset about, they should just be faithful good servants, and then all is fine" reaction to the building up of the peasant's uprising, and it isn't until she actually experiences the uprising itself (which includes John of Gaunt's London residence getting burned to the ground) and by accident and various plot devices ends up among the peasants that she clues in to just how badly their situation is.
The novel also does a great job showing how important and ever present religion was for people on every level of society in the middle ages, and not in a cliché "evil fanatical preacher shouts 'Witch!' at heroine" way. Given that Katherine's brother-in-law is Geoffrey Chaucer, I'm not surprised the author couldn't resist featuring pilgrimages (and not just to Canterbury), but Julian of Norwich showing up was unexpected and nicely done. It's also part of an ingenious way of the author giving Katherine something to do during those years before Constance of Aragon's death when John of Gaunt had returned to his wife, and making that something an important part of Katherine's character development.
However, and this leads me to a nitpick, Anya Seton invented an alternate reason for Hugh Swynford's death that is an indispensable part of what happenes later and the decision Katherine makes. Fair enough; it's a novel, not a biography. And the passages where Katherine deals with what happens are truly powerful. However, what's not fair is that the author pulls this off via a plot device character who only exists to perform a certain action and then is unceremoniously dispensed with. This made the narrative uneven for me, which it wouldn't have been had this character been allowed to develop and breathe, and exist once he's fulfilled that particular purpose. In fact, it would have been tremendously interesting to see both Katherine and John interact with him post facto and knowing the truth.
My other nitpick isn't really one in that I'm fairly certain this is my fault and not the author's, but I'm not sure her John of Gaunt works for me. She goes out of her way to not idealize him, that's not the problem, or rather: I believe the flaws, but I don't really believe the virtues, and that in turn makes selling me on the central relationship between him and Katherine tricky.
(Or maybe Susan Howatch's version in Wheel of Fortune as the ultimate flawed-yet-sympathetic John has spoiled me for all other versions.)
Memorable other characters include Katherine's first husband Hugh, her immensely practical sister Philippa (the one who's married to Chaucer), Joan of Kent and Chaucer himself. Something that's striking if you've come, as I do, from rather recent Richard II viewings and delvings into Shakespearean fanfiction is that John's oldest son, the future Henry IV., hardly shows up at all (Katherine has more interaction with his sister Elizabeth, and of course with her own children both by Hugh and by John). Richard does show up now and then, as a mercurial spoiled brat who can be nice when the mood suits him but has zilch empathy for his people. Anya Seton says in the afterword that supposedly Tom Swynford (Katherine's son from her first marriage) was in charge of the castle where Richard very likely was starved to death, which was news to me. (But explains why Susan Howatch had his modern day equivalent be ultra loyal to Harry Godwin, aka her Henry IV., and provide him with an alibi for the night in which her version of Richard dies.)
Outstanding sequences: definitely the entire peasant's uprising, which Seton caps with the "serfs you are and serfs you will remain" quote; also the death of Blanche, John's first wife, which in her version is by plague; and Katherine becoming a pilgrim.
All in all: I'm not sure about the "definite" part, but this was certainly a very readable and interesting novel about Katherine Swynford.
no subject
ETA: Actually I'm amazed that it stands up to a critical reading in the 21st century, that's pretty good work.
no subject