My Enemy, The Queen (and other thoughts)

So, the first thing I noticed about this book was how old it looks. I know that's irrelevant, and it doesn't even really pertain to the class, but that really intrigued me. The book was published in 1978, and the cover art certainly reflects that. Like I said, not super relevant but it's interesting that something has peaked interests not only over centuries, but in recent decades as well when, like, everything is changing.

Something I don't like about books like these are the general use of fluff. It's a book about Queen Elizabeth (kind of) and her lover's lover (I think), and the use of adjectives is overwhelming. The author uses a ton of alliteration, and rhyming at some points. I have a few examples here: 

• "I went angry, hurt and humiliated," (p 94).
• "I must have looked stricken and shown I looked sick," (p 96).
• "Servants were scurrying up and down to the sickroom," (p 240)
• "Both girls were excited and delighted," (p 234). 

This use of alliteration and rhyming and excessive adjectives distracts me from the story, and seems like a technique I was taught in middle school. Obviously adjectives add a lot to an otherwise bland story, but using them with every other word is distracting and unnecessary and detracts from what could have been a great story if I wasn't so busy counting fluff words. I see the irony in me using a lot of adjectives in that sentence. Also, I don't like the weird phrasing, a lot of which makes me super uncomfortable. Example: 

• "I had to witness my husband making verbal love to my rival," (p 230).

Regardless, I do prefer this portrayal of Queen Elizabeth. Sure, she was the villain, but she wasn't the weak woman we saw in The Virgin's Lover. It seemed that this would have been more accurate, even though it was exaggerated. I'd rather see a tough, dominant, bitchy queen over one who makes all of her decisions to help other people (read: lovers). 

Another aspect of us looking into Queen Elizabeth is that she literally has nothing to do with us. Like, sure America comes from England, but I find it super fascinating that this interest has not only lasted centuries but it has crossed continents, and people all over want to read a fictitious story about an old queen who wasn't even theirs. I asked one of my good friends who was born and raised in England, "What are your general thoughts on Queen Elizabeth I, go" and he responded with a kind of mundane answer of, "From what I remember she was considered to be one of our greatest monarchs in a time of general male dominance, she was strong minded, and she ruled well." Now, I don't know about you, but that kind of boring answer is so interesting to me! He doesn't even mention her virginity...whether that be due to the fact that maybe some people couldn't care less about history, it wasn't taught, it wasn't important enough to stick--regardless of the reason, all he remembered was her dominance and the fact that she is remembered as a really great leader. 

Considering all of this, it makes sense why people would write about her. So many thoughts, perspectives, and a woman who is interesting to many people for various reasons, why not write books which depict her as various versions of the truth? A virgin, a bitch, a lover, etc. There is not truth, so I understand why the authors are happy to experiment, as well as make a ton of money off of other people's interests. Even in a fluffy book about lovers and weirdly phrased euphemisms.