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.

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.