i’m in between revisions again and more
than a little obsessed with Fury of the Phoenix.
it’s a fantastic all-consuming a little maddening
feeling. i write in my head constantly, am thinking
of plot and scene and dialogue and character.
and god knows what’s getting lost sometimes
due to The Hole in My Head. but i think i retain most
of it, and forget other mundane things in life like
laundry, brushing sweet pea’s hair, making dinner
and other negligible things such as those. =) ha!
i had a really interesting discussion with megan
the last time we met about Wolf Hall, which i had
just begun. if you didn’t know, i’m absolutely fascinated
by the tudor period. so much so i’ll actually read non-fiction
novels on the time and people--which i don’t do often.
i’m almost strictly a fiction kind of reader--other than
novel research.
my favorite “characters” has to be anne boleyn
and her daughter, elizabeth I. you truly couldn’t
write their lives and make it more tension filled,
passionate, dangerous, exciting and tragic as they
actually lived it.
*anne boleyn.
we’re not even quite certain how anne looked.
given all the various portraits supposedly attributed
to her. she is often portrayed as very devious, chasing
after power and seducing henry VIII. but i was reading
a new biography which decided to present her as a
reluctant maiden, a virgin that garnered the king’s
attentions and although trying to deflect it, could
not deny him in the end. (how do you deny a king?)
she finally accepted her fate as an opportunity to
support the protestant cause.
how does one historian come up with this
interpretation and others call her a temptress
and whore, willing to do anything to become queen?
*cromwell by holbein.
since i had just started reading Wolf Hall, megan said
that it portrays thomas more in a poor light. and makes
thomas cromwell sympathetic. and she was reluctant
to read it because she liked thomas more, and was afraid
reading this will taint her opinion and view of more.
well, i’m nearing the end of Wolf Hall and i have to admit,
it certainly does portray cromwell as very sympathetic.
very human, with vices and foibles--but a character
incredibly well drawn by mantel. as a writer, you should
read it to see how real and alive an author can render
a person long gone. a true portrayal? we won’t ever
know--but certainly a compelling one. but more is definitely
put in an unfavorable light.
how can you possibly know which portrayal is true?
or the truest? is it possible to know? can we tell anything
about a person by another’s assessment of her
or him? is it possible that this is an unbiased view? and
even if not biased, could it not be one of the many masks
we wear to show the public, depending on the situation
we’re in? i think people are fascinating because we can
be so very contradictory. impossible to peg down even.
i think we all have multiple-personalities.
can we judge a person’s personality by the letters s/he
wrote? love letters? can someone who is cruel and violent
not write beautiful love letters? what about henry, who
hacked off wives’ heads one by one with (what may seem)
little remorse. but he was king. does that mean he lived
by different rules? of course. is that fair? no. but it is. it’s
impossible to believe that henry behaved or thought like
us. how could he?
it really made me think of my own characters.
they say that action speaks louder than words.
perhaps for people as well as the characters that
we write. but what meaning in action when we don’t
have the motivations behind them? murder to protect
someone you love, for vengeance or for mere blood thirst?
altruism to better the world, or to ingratiate, to salvage
a damaged reputation?
i think people--or the human condition--is so
complex. so complicated.
and i love it when it’s reflected in writing.
i don’t believe i’m a very character driven
writer. i’m much more comfortable with action
and situations, but Fury has definitely required me
to think much more about character (with my editor’s
gentle--or not!--prodding), which is exactly what
i wanted for the sequel.
and i’ll leave you with another song for chen yong
and ai ling by faye wong this time! lyric translations here.
congrats to mike jung who incredibly won the third book
by megan. (he had won the first two too.) i swear it’s
not rigged!
12 Comments
Ha! Thanks Cindy, that was the best bribe money I ever spe–I MEAN YEAH, IT TOTALLY WASN’T RIGGED…
mike, i can revoked your win. =p don’t give me a reason to. it’s not even like i got Towel Warmers or anything. humph.
Hi! So I found your site and your book via an interview on another site. And I had to put the book on hold at the library. Female characters who kick butt and Chinese culture? Can’t get enough of that, especially the latter. Looking forward to reading it!
hi abby! thanks so much for taking the time to visit and comment! i do hope you enjoy Silver Phoenix, too!!
Great post, Cindy. I spent a lot of time studying the Tudors in college, and I have to confess, I have let most of the Tudor novels pass me by because it is a period that I feel is pretty set in my head. I did read this one though (and loved it!) precisely because it is such a revisionist portrait of Cromwell. Interestingly, Vanora Bennett’s novel about the More family (I guess I haven’t let *all* the Tudor novels pass me by) has a very similar and equally critical take on Thomas More in it.
lucy thanks for commenting! can i ask what courses you studied the tudors for? history? more was painted as a much more loving father and husband in The Tudors. of course, that show took liberties but i was honestly impressed by how much of history it actually did follow. compressed, albeit.
I think it’s impossible to know the whole truth about historical figures, because all we have to go on is what is left behind, by them or by others. If there’s enough information from a variety of sources, we can probably get an accurate picture, but not know the whole truth. To know the whole truth, you probably have to be that person. As you said, everyone has many masks, depending on the situation. I think all you can do is come close, to have most of the truth.
It’s interesting that the books portray people in such different ways. Do they mention that there are other views about the person, to give the book a more rounded view, or do they just stick with the story they are telling? (I haven’t read the books you talked about in this post, but am fascinated by the subject.)
Good luck with your revisions and fighting the confusion and chaos of the hole in your head! (I totally understand that, BTW.)
Stephanie
http://www.sruble.com/blog
stephanie, thanks for the thoughtful reply! there are no notes at the end of Wolf Hall explaining the choices she made as far as portrayal. i did see it in weir’s lady elizabeth–in which the young princess becomes pregnant and loses a child.
I’ve always heard A. Boleyn had six fingers on her right hand! But in that portrait she has only five.
timothy, there were many unflattering things said about anne. the consensus is that she may not have been beautiful in the conventional sense but there was something striking about her. and def intelligent. the deformities she was reported to have were mostly from those who didn’t like her (from a political or religious standpoint).
most historians believe she had none.
Husband and Younger Son were just watching an installment of The Tudors this evening. We often talk about how awful it must have been to live under an absolute monarch. One day you’re in, the next day you’re in the Tower.
As for Thomas More, he was a man of his times. He wrote a lot and the good stuff ended up in A Man for All Seasons. But he also was terribly foul-mouthed, particularly toward those perceived as heretics. He and Luther both flung terrible broadsides in each others’ direction. It was what was done, then.
As for Henry, there’s a fair amount of evidence that all those head injuries resulted in some permanent neurological damage.
A very dangerous combination, as lots of people found out to their sorrow!
anne, great to know another who is fascinated by these people and time! great insights.