Book Talk

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> I reread <snip> and all my evolution books (anyone want to discuss Australopithecines or Homo Habilils?) 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Which evolution books would you recommend? 

Carol responds:
Well, all of mine are out of date, but I love Richard Leakey (who, of course, doesn't go out into the field much now since he lost his legs and took on the battle to save the elephants in Kenya. He has or had an ongoing "conflict of interpretation" (for lack of a better term) with Donald Johanson over some bones that Johanson calls Homo Habilis but Leakey thinks are from a gracile Australopithecine. (that's what i think, too.) For starters, I'd suggest Leakey's "Origins Reconsidered" and Alan Walker's "the wisdom of the Bones," which is mostly about the nearly complete skeleton of a Homo Erectus boy. Both are well-written without any unnecessary technical jargon. I don't know anything more recent that's equally readable but am open to suggestions.

Carol earlier:
> > Biography? Have you read her "biography" of Richard's wife, Anne Neville? Alison Weir is the Rita Skeeter of fifteenth-century history. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> LOL...just my luck! 
> 
> She 'has' dropped some inuendo-laced hints about Richard II. I was thinking that I had heard about this author from you, yet I didn't think you read about Swynford's time. So it must have been the Anne Neville book you told me about. Did you read it? It must have been written after the Katherine book, because I don't see it listed on the jacket. Looks like she's written several bios.

Carol again:
No, I haven't actually read it, but I know what it contains--she really believes the "England's Black Legend" stuff. I do have her "Princes in the Tower," which I'm quite literally tempted to burn. I don't want to sell it or give it away because someone might read it and believe it.


> She may be okay with Katherine Swynford since she was before Richard's time, but I'm sure you can't help noting a marked pro-Lancastrain bias, even there. BTW, "several of their descendants were involved in the War[s] of the Roses" is a bit of an understatement <snip>
> 
> Potioncat:
> That was my wording, because I took a look at the geneology chart and rather than try to count it out, went for a vague number. Frankly it seems to me that the labels Yorkist or Lancastrian were really sides rather than families. Because everyone seems to have a little of both in their "bloodline." Gees, it's worse than the Black Family Tapestry.

Carol:
Well, the Yorkists had Lancastrian blood but the Lancastrians didn't have Yorkist blood--until the pseudo-Lancastrian Henry Tudor married Elizabeth of York (Richard's niece who was only thirteen years younger than he was and must have known what he was really like), presumably to pacify the Yorkists and strengthen his weak claim. 

Potioncat: 
> As far as Lancatrian bias, as you say, this is before Richard III's time. The York-Lancaster feud hasn't started yet--but I think I see it coming. Since the main characters are John and Katherine, the book does has a bias toward them. And it is mainly about their relationship with some politics and sociology thrown in.

Carol:
Well, generally, these historical fiction authors are pretty fond of the characters and have a recognizable bias of some sort. Maybe she feels that Katherine Swynford has been unfairly maligned because of the double adultery involved with the founding of the Beaufort line? (Just guessing since I haven't read the book.)

Did you ever finish "The Sunne in Splendour" by Sharon Kay Penman?

Potioncat: 
> The book was inspired by "Katherine" by Anya Seton which is the book that started me on historical fiction and started my Lancasterian leanings. Since knowing you (Carol) I've gone from being a Lascaster supporter to pretty much thinking "A pox on both your houses."
> 
> But I still like reading the books. ;-)

Carol:
Er, that should be "plague" but I get the point. I somehow still prefer the Yorkists, particularly Richard, who was by no means perfect but has my sympathy because he's been made into a monster and can't defend himself. The one person involved that I absolutely can't stand is Henry VII. Come to think of it, I can't stand his mother, Margaret Beaufort, either, or poor Henry VI's militant French queen, Margaret of Anjou. There are moments when I could strangle Edward IV, too. If he hadn't sent his young son off to Wales to be raised by Woodvilles, history might have been very different.

Carol, wondering what history would have been like without the Tudors