I'm continuing with Sharon Kay Penman's books Time and Chance - about Henry II and Thomas Becket and Devil's Brood- going on with her narration of the rebellion and civil wars that tore King Henry II and his sons apart. Although, to start with, they don't seem to have been all that close.
As always, what comes out is the absolute fairness with which Penman treats her characters. Though she concedes, on her blog that Henry II is one of her favorite kings, she remains open to his flaws- his need for absolute control, his botched manipulations (what's worse? that he manipulated people or that he did it so badly?), his blindness to his own weaknesses.
In "Time and Chance" we see Thomas Becket- he's the only main character whose thoughts Penman makes no attempt to read- his motives unclear to both those who knew him then, and those who see him now, with the perspective of several hundred years. He's described as a chameleon- changing to meet the needs of his present master, owing nothing to those who helped him before- though I would (charitably) say that he was more loyal to his position than to those who placed him there. And the things he endured show that he was a man of some faith, certainly.
Eleanor remains enigmatic and magnetic. In these books, it becomes clear how she survived so much- two failed marriages, a husband who kept her imprisoned for sixteen years, the deaths of so many children - ever changing- not like Thomas the chameleon- but as one who learns from her experiences, not to make the same mistakes over and over again- a lesson which Henry is doomed never to learn.
Of the sons, I became unwillingly fond of Geoffrey- who I was prepared to dislike at the outset- from vague memories of The Lion in Winter"- his death seemed so unnecessary- and yet changed everything- leaving Richard virtually undisputed- except potentially, by John.
Richard, again is drawn very fairly- even though Penman admits an initial bias against him- as a competant soldier, but not much else. Though he has been famously described as a bad son- he was so only to his father- to his mother, he was incredibly loyal- I think of the lot of their sons, he was the only one to show this particular quality towards anyone.
I'm now reading Elizabeth Chadwick's "The Greatest Knight" which describes the life of William Marshall- who also appears in Penman's books. Its interesting to see how many events are corroborated by both authors- like Henry, the Young King joking that it was no great thing for the son of a count (his father Henry II) to serve the son of a king (himself). Its interesting that they see the same events differently though- Penman's Henry (the father) is amused, while Chadwick's is angered. I think though, that Penman has the clearer (less romanticized) sight, and though her books are far larger, her writing is more crisp and not as flowery. Chadwick's unnecessary flourishes make the story seem artificial, not authentic.
I don't think I'll be reading Chadwick's other books- except maybe, the sequel to this one - "The Scarlet Lion"- which should hopefully keep me satisfied as I wait for Penman's next work on Richard the Lionheart.
What shocked me most though, was when I realized that Penman was an American author... so weird!
The other book I read recently was Markus Zuzak's "The Book Thief", the story of a girl in Nazi Germany, learning to read. This is a young teens sort of book, and I've occasionally wondered that people consider books like these- set in times of war, with themes of torture, death and hard choices, to be suitable children's books. But I remember reading Anne Frank's diary when I was about eleven, and it made such an impression on me at the time. And I realise that children are exposed to more violence everyday- and besides which, if they cannot read the books that will push them to adulthood, how else will they grow?
