"This day was our good King Richard
piteously slain and murdered;
to the great heaviness of this city."
...hardly the obituary of a murderer. Something smells rotten and we ain't in Denmark.
First and foremost, let me just say as I learned the names of the characters in this book, my brain assigned Alan Grant with the image of which I already know him... there is only one Alan Grant and he is a dinosaur hunter.
Apparently my dear Dr. Grant is also a damned good detective and now has a British accent and a little lamb American sidekick. And a sassy lady-friend...yes, every time Marta entered I immediately saw Emma Stone... with a British accent of course.
Back to the little lamb. Brent Carradine is a rather handsome nerdy fella in my mind. He's definitely an Ethan Hawke. Here ya go.
So now you're partially caught up with the three constantly conversation characters in my mind.
Next, I believe that all history is Tonypandy. Silly stories comprised of minimal reality and maximum fiction riddle the history books apparently not just in the United States, but apparently across the globe. History is written by the writer. That sounds so stupid but it's true. He (or she) with the pen holds the power. The reader blindly digests the words as truth and they are forever sealed in our minds as fact.
Having been raised in New Jersey, I learned of my own experience with Tonypandy over and over again. My case in point is the Civil War. Damn the evil South for their unwillingness to free the tortured slaves (yeah, the North had those too). Oh, then let us look to the noble Northerners and their quest to free the slaves (well...actually they didn't really want to rock the boat and killed quite a few abolitionists). Um...ok The South Was Right (great book, but not all true.) The problem with history is that there is a right side, a wrong side, and the truth. No one will ever know the absolute truths in life. Everyone digests history with a bias and takes a side...even the infallible Alan Grant.
Personally, after reading this book (which may be pure Tonypandy, Hanky Panky, Gibberish etc) I quite like Richard III. Despite personal pain he tried his best to unify his family. He forgave for the greater good. He didn't kill those boys. However, everyone he should have killed and didn't came back and stabbed him in the ass (oh yeah, that was kind of literal huh?). Sounds like had a family full of jerks much like the rest of us. Powermongering, wealth-hunting, murderous (ok I don't have any murderers in my family... but I wouldn't put it past a few of them) jerks.
The people seemed to love Richard the III. Most of the nonsense about him looks to have been created after Henry killed everyone that could speak for his character. I like Richard, the hell with Henry.
I have to be honest, if anything this book didn't make me thing that Richard III was good, just that everyone was rotten. Then again I probably should have seen that coming since Game of Thrones was partly inspired by the War of the Roses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that Richard III is good and did not kill the boys. After all the people that Henry did kill, it would seem as though he would kill the boys as well. Also, when you said that the writer holds the power I found that very interesting, but it is true what the writer has written down we usually do not question and we take it for a fact. When we read history we can not take it for fact, but we have to think that there is bias and fiction throughout the reading. Lastly, your pictures of what you think the characters look like fit perfectly!
ReplyDeleteCJ!
ReplyDeleteUm... Can I just say that I absolutely adore that you added a picture of Dr. Alan Grant to your post!? I LOVE IT!!
I agree with your point that all history, to a point, is tonypandy. To a point meaning everything that isn't on film or audio recorded. We have no clue what is true or false in history. Even solid evidence can be misconstrued to fit the agenda of someone else. For hundreds of years, it was only a rumor that Thomas Jefferson slept with a slave at his plantation in Monticello. That was tonypandy. UNTIL DNA evidence confirmed that he did and had a bunch of kids with her. Boom. Now we have a real scientific evidence to back up that good ol' tonypandy. But now, it's not tonypandy, it's history.
As for Richard III: I have a love hate relationship with the guy. As a history buff and a lover of mysterious backstories, I don't know if he was a good guy or a bad one. Part of me wants to side with the people throwing some shade on him because, yeah, I can totally see him smothering his nephews and sneaking his way to the throne. But then I think that maybe he was just a misunderstood dude and thought he was doing what was best for his kingdom and had no clue what was to come of his nephews. I'm so torn either way!!
Bold statement to say that ALL history is topandy. I think history as it is told in textbooks are riddled with biases and the stories they tell probably differ from region to region. I believe that history can only be seen from first hand documents, like letters and artifacts. I liked Amy's point about Thomas Jefferson; history lies in the evidence, not the tellers.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I like how you're standing up for Richard. I felt very similar while reading the book, but I think the purpose of the book is to portray Richard as not that bad of a guy. I'm curious to see if your opinion of him will change after reading the play. Shakespeare does a VERY convincing job at portraying Richard as the epitome of evil. So now I have conflicting views of him. I guess your point about the writer holding the power really is true!
I couldn't help but comment on this one after seeing the picture from Jurassic Park. Too great. Also, I love Ethan Hawke so it made it all the more of a post I had to read. Great job drawing me in. I'd have to agree with some of the people above in saying I think it is a very bold statement to say that all history is tonypandy. When you really think about it, it is impossible to say whether anything we ever read is true. We did not witness the events happen. However, even when we witness something happen, usually three other people do as well and even then, those three others have a different interpretation of the story. High school drama all over again?
ReplyDelete