The Landy of Tonypandy

     I have never considered myself a history buff in the least, but I have even considered a few times how absurd the behaviors of royalty that we learn about in history class were and how incongruous some actions sometimes seem to be with the character of the person no matter the "norms" of that time in history. It says towards the very end of the novel "history was something he would never understand. The values of historians differed so radically from any values with which he was acquainted" (205). I can really relate to this line of thought. I guess you could say I've always been more in tune to the psychology side of things.  That's where my appreciation for this book comes in.

     It caught me off guard that this book was more than a novel about a guy stuck under unfavorable conditions trying to solve a whodunit. It turned out to be so much more. It almost in a way is a revolution changing all of time. Who would have imagined?!  It gets one questioning everything they know about the past! I've never been one to delve into the many and sometimes monotonous layers of history, but this book got me quickly thinking significantly more dynamic about historical events and how their stories come about.
     This novel seems to define "history" as events that have happened in the past and are recorded in textbooks and history books alike. "Tonypandy" is the word the characters seem to exclaim whenever one of these events of the past that is a fixed part of "history" is proven to be fictional or made-up somewhere down the line.
     If one actually thinks about it for a bit, it is actually very easy for the facts of events that happened so long ago to become misconstrued and contorted especially considering who is recording them to begin with. People in social scenes today can't even get the facts of events that happened yesterday straightened out which is how rumors spread about. "Tonypandy" is most likely first established when someone who is biased to one side of the story tells the story through their eyes or in a censored way as to put themselves into a better light. The book mentions how in hindsight the lies were obvious to pick out because Henry VII was so mysterious about his actions as opposed to Richard III who had nothing to hide. "Tonypandy" then after that will start to evolve into a more rounded "story" rather than narratives of real life just by human nature alone, and these sometimes ridiculous fairy tale-like tales continue to get passed down from there just by tradition.

     I got the notion especially towards the end that the book's stance on history is that one must question everything and not be quick to believe anything you hear about in history. It's something that has always been in the back of the mind especially whenever I consider the classic story of Thanksgiving. This novel, however, has brought it to the very front of my mind, and now that I consider it, I think there are a lot of facts maybe that are left out in history, and therefore, manipulating how one thinks of events in history. However, it is extreme to think that all events are fabrications of the mind and didn't actually happen. This novel does have an extraordinary point, and it's stance is definitely probably true some of the time.

Tonypandy's got me pondering life

Over the years, I’ve been assigned a number of books to read for a variety of different classes. The majority of the time, I can tell just by glancing at the book whether or not I am going to enjoy the text. I seldom find my first impression to be wrong. However, I can honestly say “Daughter of Time” surprised me. I was under the impression that I was about to read a book which would simply spit out facts about Richard III; I certainly didn’t expect it be so thought provoking.

            Throughout the first few chapters, I knew I’d been wrong already, and was definitely interested in where the story would go. It wasn’t until this whole idea of “tonypandy” came up, though, that my mind really started racing. At first, I was just amazed at how easily Alan Grant made me question the legitimacy of everyone’s thoughts on Richard III. Everyone’s thoughts on the King were so negative, and so concrete, but when they were asked to elaborate on what they “know” about him, they’re responses were almost comical. The Amazon nurse said he had been born with a full set of teeth and chewed his way out of the womb. The Midget nurse never really supported herself, she just “knew”. Naturally, the more Grant researched, the more I started to believe he may be onto something.

            Sure, I thought about Richard III for a little while after I put the book down. I thought about messed up it would be if his image has been tarnished over the years, when he may not have actually been the villain he was made out to be. However, as I continued to read, I almost found it hard to concentrate on Richard III specifically. Richard is an important part of history, but in the grand scheme of things, such a small piece. Not to undermine his importance, but what if tonypandy is applicable to all of history?

            We grow up learning about thousands of years of human activity on Earth. I’ve sat in classrooms learning about history’s biggest wars, inventions and figures. I’ve been told which presidents were great, and which were terrible. I’ve been told who caused every major war, and who the “bad guys” were. BUT IT’S 2016. I wasn’t alive for 99% of things I’ve learned in history classes. My teachers also weren’t alive for most the content we learn, and neither were most of the historians putting this information in textbooks. So how do we know what to believe?

            Obviously historians and history teachers are essential, and most of what we’re taught is accurate; it’s just that after reading this book I feel like that “what if?” question will always be in the back my head as I go forward studying important figures and past events.

"Truth is the daughter of time."

I

I was actually kind of excited to start this novel, mysteries always intrigue me and it's so satisfying when you get to the end of the book and all of the little bits and pieces come together; I always sit there exclaiming inside my head because it all finally makes sense... so, when I started to read Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time it was rather dull and the words dragged on as Grant laid there describing the cracks in the hospital ceiling. But, as the story progressed, my interest in the novel increased...I was getting drawn into the story and wanting to discover things along with Grant, wanting to figure out what really went on with Richard III (because obviously half the legends about him are complete BS...there's absolutely nooo wayyyy that he was in his mother's womb for TWO YEARS or that he was born with a full set of teeth....come on now people). And while I learned more with Grant, I also learned more about the meaning of history when compared with "tonypandy" and i developed my own understanding of the two

I think he looks more worrisome than villainous...

"Tonypandy" is what I would consider a loose definition of history...it's something of a collection of stories and personal accounts told by people of the time period or even told by people who were told by people and so on. It can also been seen with a similar effect as that of the "bystander effect" (when one person relies on a bystander to act on something and that person relies on another person etc. so that the something in question is never actually acted upon). Such as people are afraid to speak up in a bystander situation, people who witnessed historical events may be shy to shoot down exaggerations and to correct the facts that are being told and written down as "history"...."tonypandy" is the history that is fabricated from accounts that people pass along, rather than straight from the "horses mouth" if you please. Afterall, we all know that winners are the ones who write the history books and spread their "tonypandy"...

"History" on the other hand is what I believe to be the real facts about the actual events and people that actually happened....and because I've typed a ton already, I'm just going to list a few quotes from the book that I believe sum up the meaning of history and how it's kept track of...
          these quotes are all from the conversation between Grant and Carradine in the end of chapter 8

"The real history is written in forms not meant as history" (pg 106)
"Truth isn't in accounts, but in account books" (pg106)
"After all, the truth of anything at all doesn't lie in someone's account of it. It lies in all the small facts of the time" (pf 105)

"Tonypandy" & History: Fiction & Non-Fiction

Before reading "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey I felt like I had a very firm grasp on my definition of the word history. I've always been interested in the past, which is what lead me to becoming an art history major. Our past is a fundamental piece of understanding the present. Without some sort of "history" whether we believe it accurate or not, it would be difficult to understand the world, politics, art, and cultures.

Mystery novels were never interesting to me. Most of them are predictable and boring. This particular mystery novel peaked my interest as soon as history became a controversial issue. Grant is this hardcore crime solving machine who ironically is incapable of moving. He decides to prove that Richard III is not a haneous murderer, but in that journey he realizes how misconstrued all of his sources are. He can't believe what he is reading about this guy, and comes to the conclusion that history, as much as we have been forced to think it's always true, may be completely inaccurate. 

This is where I began to feel indifferent about the novel. "Tonypandy" was a new term for me, and what I got from it was that it meant turning a fact into fiction...for example, taking a real person and creating a fictional life about them. The same concept as how "rumors" start. As a person who is passionate about history, historians, and all the effort that goes in to trying to prove the historical events that have been written down for us are indeed real, I felt a very condescending tone being expressed from Grant, almost as if the idea of history was comical. There was a thin line between when history becomes "tonypandy" and vise versa. I do believe that history can and has been distorted from reality, but does that mean ALL history can't be trusted? Does that mean all of the archeologist who dedicate their lives digging up the past to prove it's real can't be trusted? After all, history isn't the only thing people chose to add or subtract facts from. It happens in politics, business, Wall Street, and it's happening every day all around you. 

Other than the occasional knock at "history" and it's relativeness to us at individuals, I thought the novel had a very interesting perspective on a topic that should be addressed more. We shouldn't always believe everything we see or read...especially when it involves lives of real people. 

The Daughter of Time...Tonypany and Poppycock; Silly Stories Heraldedas Truth

"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.

Political Tonypandy

With the 2016 election ahead, it's easy to get overwhelemed in politcal drama. Through reading Daughter of Time and gaining an understanding of how history is written by those with power, it's evident that politics thrive on Tonypandy. For example, Chris Christie's hurricane sandy relief efforts gained him positive regard in the media and political significance; however, little is ever mentioned about the questionable use of hurricane relief funds by his administration. Before selecting a candidate this election it's imperative that everyone do objective research on their respective candidate; although, this proves difficult as evidenced by Grant's realization of Thomas More's bias. Tonypandy can work for or against anyone in the public spotlight intent on gaining power. This realization helps explain myriad accusations made in the political arena. Since politics is synonymous with the acquisition of power it is clear that Tonypandy plays a major role in the process.

Alans relationship with others

I really enjoyed reading Tey's The Daughter of Time, and I can believe you when you said this is the first book you've read front to back. I felt very intrigued throughout the "investigation" process. What I felt was very interesting to me was how Alan Grant interacted with the people who were taking care of him in the hospital as he was recuperating from his broken leg. When I first started reading I felt like he was in a very bad mood and took it out on "the midget" he called, or one of the nurses that was taking care of him.
If I was a nurse in that hospital I wouldn't have wanted to hear him Complaining about his pains and boredom. I believe once Alan got into the investigation over Richard III he was more openly communicating with those he came into contact with. For instance asking a couple of people of what they thought about Richard III and what they knew about him. I think this new found interest promoted his relationship with the people he was coming into contact with each day as he couldn't move in the hospital. I found it interesting that he asked many of the nurses what they knew about Richard and didn't throw out any assumptions that were made, he kept his mind open to what others peoples opinions were in the beginning. I also feel like he was very Lucky to have those friends pick up books for him from the library and book store as he needed them. I have to give Alan a thumbs up for his effort being on his back like he was. He kept his interest and focus when it wasn't the best situation or environment to be doing an investigation.

History: Is there some fact in the fiction?

On the first day of class, we discussed what we believed to be the meaning of history and fiction. Many of us saw a clear distinction between the two. For the most part, the consensus was history is a series of events that are factual and fiction is a concoction of the imagination- made up events, if you will. After reading Tey’s, The Daughter of Time, it is clear that both history and fiction can be one of the same and that it is very difficult to sway from popular beliefs that have been credited as history. But what is history? Is it just a series of beliefs that have been adapted over time and commonly viewed as factual? These are questions that arise from the novel. Even until this very day Richard III is viewed as the epitome of villainy. Our protagonist, Alan Grant, begins to question that view because to him, how could the face in the portrait be a murderer when there is so much sadness and pain behind his eyes? Grant adopts this notion of topandy; an idea that much of what is viewed as history is just a myth.

Now I am no history buff and I really do not know much about English history, but I question why Richard III became the quintessential villain of English history. Then I turned to something that interests me a little more- American history. I googled “American historical myths” and came across this list of top 10 “myths” that Americans believe to be fact (here is the link if anyone is interested:  http://all-that-is-interesting.com/american-history-myths ). The first myth took me by surprise. It was the story of Paul Revere and how he had warned American troops that “the British are coming!” According to the article (and I am sure if I researched it more in depth I would find similar evidence), the story has been twisted in a way to make Revere appear to be this grand hero, when in fact he did not utter those words and was accompanied by a group of people. Despite what actually happened, Americans still views Revere as the quintessential American patriot.  But this was the point. The story was adapted as a sort of American propaganda to instill pride and patriotism in the American public. This idea is very similar to Grant’s notion that Richard III was portrayed as this evil creature to arouse support for the Tudor monarchy.

I concluded my reading and research of historical myths questioning history as a whole. Obviously, many events occurred and are told as they had happened, but it is difficult to know the truth behind everything that we believe to be fact. Were heroes really heroes? Were villains really villains? I guess we really will never know. But in the mean time, history really does make one hell of a story.

"Tonypandy" Nonsense

    Throughout the novel, The Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey, there was a lot of "Tonypandy" nonsense. Tonypandy is a term to describe an event that has either been tampered with or blown out of proportion in a way that the event no longer holds truth to what actually happened. This could be because of political or religious reasons to make such an event hold more meaning to their cause. It was said in the book that Grant starts to believe that tonypandy exists everywhere--even in school books. I have to agree (and it's quite unsettling).

I'm actually obsessed with Tangled you guys soooo...

     This book's stance on history is very intriguing. I got a sense that the only way to really know what has happened in history is to not just look in writings that have been meant to be history, but to look at personal accounts and things that were not supposed to have any meaning, like a letter or something. Through these accounts, you can see the real truth. An example of this is when Grant and Carradine read a letter from Richard III about Jane Shore and the fact that she was to be married off to another guy. Instead of seeming angry about this, Richard seemed more sad than anything else. He willingly gave his girl away with no problem at all. I found that a little odd. So did Grant. If everyone depicted Richard to be an awful guy, I doubt that he would give up his girl without a fight. The gesture seems nice enough.

    Another thing I found interesting was the fact that there are so many ways history can get muddled. Not only can the writings of the time be biased or slightly untrue because of getting second hand information about a certain subject, but it can also be altered for different motives entirely. Especially people in power. Power is a good thing to have back in the day. You could change anything you want just because you can. Yes, there are some limitations, but I feel like if you have connections, like a king, you can get stuff done. When Henry VII became king, he went away with Titulus Regius (the thing that made Elizabeth and the Princes in the tower legitimate/illegitimate) and made it seem like it had never existed. What if he completely destroyed any notion that it existed? That there just happened to be no record of the original and lost forever? People in today's time would never actually know the full truth only because there would be no proof. I've come to believe that that could be the case in history since the beginning of recorded history.

            

   
   This book has changed how I view history for sure. It makes me feel like nothing can be completely true even when trying real hard to stay truthful. It reminds me of a book I read in high school. It was called, The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien. In it, there was a chapter named "How to Tell a True War Story" (or at least I think that's what it was called. Its been a long time so bear with me here). The chapter pretty much said that there was no way to tell a story that is completely true because there will always be a certain detail missed and/or sometimes even an exaggeration of the truth to make the story, or themselves, sound better. I guess you can call this... tonypandy nonsense :)

Tonypandy or Just a Game of Telephone?

Would you believe me if I said that this was the first book I’ve read from front to back in my five semesters of college? Or would most of you consider that to be “tonypandy”?

Personally, I really enjoyed reading Daughter of Time. It was a break from the usual dry, boring textbook assignments that never have any life. Josephine Tey was able to do accomplish a feat that I have never seen done before and that was making a historical text come to life with a compelling crime story. A rather tremendous feat when really thought about because Tey also managed to pose a few interesting questions.

She made, I’d say 90 percent of the world’s population question their definition of what history is. In Daughter of Time, Grant discovers that what is written in the textbooks regarding Richard III is not actually the truth and therefore is not valid history.

History is an accurate representation of occurrences from any point that has already happened. There, my typing of the previous sentence is a form of history. Is it important history? Not in the slightest but the event actually occurred. No one framed or covered it up.

What Grant realizes through his research is that a majority of what is written in the textbooks ought to be classified as “tonypandy,” or myths regarding events that actually happened in the past. In all honesty, the best way that I could possible describe “tonypandy” is that it seems to me to be a form of telephone.

One person has one recollection of what was said and tells someone, then that person modifies it slightly so it fits his or her liking, and so forth. “Tonypandy” becomes history when this game of telephone reaches the point where it has been passed around so much that no one bothers to check anymore because lazy.

Tey made us all challenge the beliefs we hold about history. I personally believe that history is accurate most of the time but not to its fullest extent. Everyone knows that those who were lucky enough to win are the ones who end up writing the history. Unfortunately, people do not want to make themselves look bad so they leave out a few minor (or let’s be honest, HUGE) details regarding the events, yet normally it is pretty accurate.

In today’s age, with the emergence of social media, it would appears to be much more difficult to fake what happened since there are multiple witnesses to almost every event.

History and Tonypandy

Alan Grant's view on history - by Alex Graham

Alan Grant prides himself on his canny ability to decipher faces and the actions attributed to those faces. I believe that according to this book, history is simply another word for the past. When he is in bed, Grant is given many pieces of history (or in other words, many pieces of the past) to keep him entertained. The picture of Richard III that he receives piques his interest and proposes a challenge for his facial deciphering abilities.

The history of Richard III was subject to what Grant referred to as "tonypandy": when history is misconstrued due to the ignorance of tudors and the exclusion of others to participate. 

I loved how this book wasn't afraid to go against what everyone had thought previously and question what we think we know. It happens all the time in history; ignorant people who think they know what happened write history and then people end up believing their lies.

This book challenged me to really think into every historical document that I read. It challenged me to think about both sides of every story and what the justification could've been for heinous acts throughout history. Take Adolf Hitler, for example. I wasn't alive during his lifetime or WWII, so all I can do is believe what history told me about his life. Although it is not likely, wouldn't it be possible for everyone to have lied to me about the life of Hitler and for him to actually been a good person? The same goes for Richard III; History tells us that he was a murderer, but couldn't he have been a decent guy after all?

The question that I leave with after reading this book is that if tonypandy happened to the history of someone, who would be more ignorant: the person who conjured the false stories and wrote them down as history? or the reader for not doubting what history tells them?

Tonypandy & History

          The novel The Daughter of Time makes myself look back of all the past history classes you have taken and questions it accuracy. History is considered the study of past event, which is clearly depicted in this novel. Throughout the novel the character discuss the topic of “Tonypandy”, which was defined as a dramatic story with not a word of the truth in it. Now looking back on my years of history classes, makes me think does all the lesson from history books have another side that we do not see and have a different meaning? 

           Through his curiosity of investigating faces he come across the portrait of Richard III and is determined to find the true story behind the face. During his quest he learns from many sources information about Richard. One common factor from almost every source was that he killed his nephews that were put away in the tower, in order to become king. As a detective and an expert of reading faces, Alan Grant did not see Richard as a murder. Alan was determined with the help of Carradine to look past all the “tonypandy” that was formed about Richard to understand what really happened four hundred years ago.

            After consulting a numerous amount of sources Alan and Carradine came across the conclusion that Richard was not as ruthless as disclosed in elementary history books and a lot of tonypandy was the cause of people believing he was a murder and that he ate his way out of the womb. Tonypandy is created by whoever gets to share their story first and persuade everyone to believe it and later will become the history that everyone will know. In order for some people to remember one might exaggerate the truth to make it more entertain. Over four hundred years ago when history was made, when this novel was written, the ruler of the country had all the control. Therefore, no one dared to question them with out suffering from consequences. In every kingdom there is a villain; however, we as an audience do not always know the villain’s story. We only see the villain’s side if one is willing to take on the challenge to search for the truth and go against the status quo to defend them. This makes me think of newer Disney movies that share the side of to villains to give an understanding of why they may act a certain way. This makes one look past the tonypandy and learn what really happened. 

         Tonypandy can be considered the history that has lasted through time that people have remembered. Whether true of false history is determined by the one that reports it first and that is carried through generations. Tonypandy may survive the facts, only because of the entertainment.