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.

Elizabeth

At the beginning of the movie Elizabeth, I felt like I knew very little about Elizabeth. Traditionally, my interests follow King Henry VIII and his legacy, having watched The Tudors and reading up about them. So, I knew about the basics.

This movie gave me a fleshed out version of what I knew, and it was interesting to watch. The big issues with Elizabeth's reign as detailed by the movie were her religion and who she'd marry. These topics were practically all that were discussed. Not even 40 minutes in, lines such as "Marriage is politics, no time for following one's heart," and "Her majesty's body and person are no longer her own property" can be heard. Lines such as these spoken to day would cause about 50 news articles, 30 YouTube videos, etc, just due to the sexist and degrading nature of them; it is shocking to us now to see that they were common and accepted at the time, which gives another look at why Elizabeth potentially chose not to marry in order to keep power.

From the very beginning, the word "tonypandy" came to mind. It's a concept which we have discussed in great depth, both in class and previous blog posts. When Queen Mary asks Elizabeth to uphold the Catholic religion, Elizabeth seems to weasel her way around it and give a really half-assed answer. She says to Mary, "I promise to follow my heart" which is neither here nor there. I sort of understand why Mary was so reluctant to choose a successor when Elizabeth was being so shady! Elizabeth is, for the most part, portrayed as the queen of queens, dedicated to religion and England for her entire life. In the movie, we see a different side of her, and in class we discussed an even different side yet. The glorification of her reign is tonypandy that works to Elizabeth's advantage.

What I really enjoyed about this movie was the transformation from cheeky, red-blooded and young Elizabeth, to the end where she is the Queen of England and it shows in her expression. Cate Blanchett did a really nice job portraying the transformation that was probably difficult to execute, and as a realistic fiction I think this movie did an excellent job of showing what might have been. 

Media in My Life

To put it simply, media is a really interesting thing. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition of "mediate" (noun form) is "to act as an intermediary or a mediator." Not super helpful, but  they all have the same root word. The adjective form gives us a better definition, "intermediate; intervening or interposed in position, rank, quality, time, or order of succession."

Now, I realize that that's pretty boring and frankly, not super clear. Let's break it down a little more. The etymology of "mediate" comes from the Latin word mediatus, past participle of mediare which means to "halve" and later meant "be in the middle." That all comes from the online etymology dictionary, which I find pretty cool.

So how is that relevant to our use of media today? My interpretation of this would be to take the literal meaning of the root word: to be in the middle. Pair it with our understanding of media today (social media, the news, books, tablets, etc.). We've also got that massive Wiki list of artistic media ranging from paintings, to films, to power tools,  and we are left with an interesting concept of what "media" means to our generation, something that comes in the middle of us and information, or a message.

I'm a TV person. I love horror movies, and comedies, and TLC, and The Biggest Loser. I'm also an internet person, to an extent. Not a huge social media person, but I do dabble. I'm obsessed with music. My most beloved media outlet is through text. I am a huge nerd when it comes to reading; books, mainly, including non-fiction, classics, realistic fiction, teen romance novels, mystery novels, history textbooks, any kind of literature assigned to me in class...the only thing I really hate to read are textbooks that are math/science related. I've always been the girl to sit with my book and binge-read until my eyes were blurry. 

I think that media has revolutionized the world. (Duh.) Televisions, phones, newspapers, music; these outlets reach people in a way that has never been possible in the millions of years before. All of this stuff is serving as a platform for stuff to make its way to us, and I cant think of anything cooler than that. Before media became a thing, there was just all this knowledge floating around out there but somehow we've found a way to snag it and plant it on a tangible thing for us to absorb and learn about and love/hate/whatever. It's really a beautiful thing. 

Truth is the Daughter of Time

The Daughter of Time is a book that has a lot of really interesting ideas about how we define and preserve truth and history, or rather "truth" and "history". Throughout the book it's evident to the reader that regardless of whether Richard III was a villain or an unfortunately misrepresented king, the documents and information surrounding him are a blur of badly recorded stories.

Josephine Tey, undoubtedly knowing this after having done all of the researchherself, put a well chosen epigraph at the beginning of her book about Richard III and Grant's research. "Truth is the daughter of time." The quote has no author, cited only as "Old Proverb", which to me is in itself a succinct representation of one of the messages this book is trying to send; even this "old proverb" has no definite author to claim it, yet it is still in circulation today. Much like the rumors about Richard III.

Tey tells us many times in the book that the stories about Richard III are simply that: stories. They rarely if ever have sources or any kind of proof of their existence--save for his familial history, nothing truly SOLID is documented about Richard III.

A particular instance in the story says, "It was shocking how little history remained with one after a good education." This touches on the bias of education, how if one had an idea of Richard III that could affect teaching and whitewash the necessity of proof. In another example, one of our protagonists Officer Grant (the other debatable protagonist being Richard III) asks who a source was quoting--the response he gets is, "Quoting? It wasn't quoting anything. It was just giving facts." Another example of how when a bias is strong or someone speaks with conviction, a source seems like an afterthought.

With regard to Richard III in particular, it is important to see where the original rumors started. In his case, many of them were created posthumously by his "worst enemy" and recorded by someone whose life barely overlapped with the ill-fated king's. Even the way/where he died was shrouded in doubt given the lack of evidence, until the recent discovery of his remains. A recent facial reconstruction from his skull resulted in this: video on reconstruction, there's a side by side picture at the bottom which I find really cool.

Tonypandy, which seems to be a hot topic of discussion when reading this book and discussing Richard III, is a good word to sum up the muddling of information and "facts". This book also raises a concern about how history was recorded, and the reliability of historical documents. However, unless a time machine is able to take us back so it is discernible first hand what happened to Richard III and his two nephews it will all be speculation and debate.