Title: Athénaïs: The Life of Louis XIV's Mistress, the Real Queen of France
Author: Lisa Hilton
Date Begun: May 25, 2007
Date Completed: May 29, 2007
Look, I don't have any problem with revisionist historians. Unpopular historical characters are some of my favorite people. So it's easy to understand the desire to rehabilitate such characters, and Hilton wants to do that here. The problem with the book is that Hilton goes much too far in her quest. Instead of recognizing the flaws in her subject, Hilton ignores all of them in order to make Montespan into the goddess her name implies.
Really, this is the bitchiest, cattiest biography I've ever read. It's like Regina George wrote it. Except then it would have been funny. And on one level it is plenty of fun, but really it's simply exasperating. Life isn't high school. The role of mistress is not synonymous with prom queen. There is more to it than looks or popularity - just as there is more to the role of queen.
I don't understand why Hilton is only interested in such a shallow analysis. Obviously beauty was important and Athénaïs was quite amazingly lovely - but it was not the end all and be all of women's political involvement, even in the seventeenth century. Nor was beauty the entirety of a courtier's life. But Hilton equates stupidity and unattractiveness. Maria Theresa was unattractive, so she wasn't worthy to be the queen of France. OBVIOUSLY. I wonder what Hilton would have done if she'd tried to write about Catherine de Medici (and for a book about that unattractive and politicall able Queen of France, I recommend Leonie Frieda's biography).
Athénaïs left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Between Hilton's overly credulous discussion of the Affair of the Poisons - seventeenth century superstition made Satanism/witchcraft a bit more complex than I think Hilton treats the matter - and the hero worship she heaps on Montespan, I just want my five bucks back. And you know, I didn't have high expectations to begin with.
(Points to Hilton, though, for citing Anthony Blunt and Nancy Mitford.)
Monday, May 28, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Review: The Divided Crown, Isabel Glass
Title: The Divided Crown
Author: Isabel Glass
Date Begun: May 19, 2007
Date Completed: May 20, 2007
I picked up The Divided Crown based on two things: The K. Y. Craft cover art and the Patricia McKillip blurb on the front. I love Patricia McKillip. She is one of the best fantasy writers ever, and some day everyone else will know it. Of course, I don't expect every author I pick up to have the same mastery of language and characterization that McKillip has. However, I thought The Divided Crown would be a safe bet, if Patricia McKillip liked it.
Not so much. I'm glad I bought this on the bargain shelf, because I would have been really pissed off if I'd bought it a full hardcover price.
The Divided Crown has some good points. For example, of the main characters two of them are middle-aged and married with children. That's something you hardly ever see among fantasy novels, or novels period. And I genuinely liked Angarred. But generally, I was left with the feeling that none of Glass' characters were really very smart, and that's never a good way to feel. Certainly, politically involved people should be quicker on the uptake, even if one of them is a recovering drug addict. (I really should have liked this book more than I did. It had a recovering drug addict too. And cross dressing fortune tellers.)
Beyond the characters is Glass' writing. Her style reminds me of Lloyd Alexander, but not in a good way. Alexander's writing was superior - not least because he included jokes. But there is an oversimplified style to Glass' writing here which doesn't do well in a novel this length. Like some of Alexander's writing, I was left with the feeling that I was reading this a bit too soon after taking some Benadryl. But that feeling works with Westmark or The Black Cauldron. I don't know if it will ever work for The Divided Crown.
Author: Isabel Glass
Date Begun: May 19, 2007
Date Completed: May 20, 2007
I picked up The Divided Crown based on two things: The K. Y. Craft cover art and the Patricia McKillip blurb on the front. I love Patricia McKillip. She is one of the best fantasy writers ever, and some day everyone else will know it. Of course, I don't expect every author I pick up to have the same mastery of language and characterization that McKillip has. However, I thought The Divided Crown would be a safe bet, if Patricia McKillip liked it.
Not so much. I'm glad I bought this on the bargain shelf, because I would have been really pissed off if I'd bought it a full hardcover price.
The Divided Crown has some good points. For example, of the main characters two of them are middle-aged and married with children. That's something you hardly ever see among fantasy novels, or novels period. And I genuinely liked Angarred. But generally, I was left with the feeling that none of Glass' characters were really very smart, and that's never a good way to feel. Certainly, politically involved people should be quicker on the uptake, even if one of them is a recovering drug addict. (I really should have liked this book more than I did. It had a recovering drug addict too. And cross dressing fortune tellers.)
Beyond the characters is Glass' writing. Her style reminds me of Lloyd Alexander, but not in a good way. Alexander's writing was superior - not least because he included jokes. But there is an oversimplified style to Glass' writing here which doesn't do well in a novel this length. Like some of Alexander's writing, I was left with the feeling that I was reading this a bit too soon after taking some Benadryl. But that feeling works with Westmark or The Black Cauldron. I don't know if it will ever work for The Divided Crown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
