The People's Queen by Vanora Bennett

[Miss Moppet]

Okay, this could be Moppet talking to herself, but I know Leo is reading this and may want to discuss when she returns from her hols.

On page 53 and it's not bad at all. I'm not the greatest fan of present tense, but I'm enjoying it. I couldn't quite see the point of the prologue (although it does get the Black Death in) but the first chapters are shaping up fine. Glad it starts eight years into Alice Perrers' reign as I couldn't face dragging through all her early life again after The King's Mistress, but VB has quite a different idea of Alice anyway. It's more conventional but also more believable. Alice seems real, not like a paper doll.

From chapter one:

...Alice has begun to understand that the enchanted dream she's been living in until now - the best part of a decade as the indulged darling of a dear old man who, himself, has been on the throne for nearly half a century, and is loved, everywhere, as England's greatest king - must soon come to an end. No one else seems to have noticed or to be planning their next move, although when Edward does pass on the end of his reign will surely affect them all.

Present tense or no, this is telling not showing, but I don't care, because (1) I prefer a couple of paragraphs of narrative to two pages of expository dialogue any day of the week; and (2) there's plenty of action too. My frustration with The King's Mistress was that there were so few scenes to engage me with the story. Here we've got Princess Joan throwing wine in Alice Perrers' face within the first thirty-odd pages. I had to smile considering how they were supposed to be BFF in TKM, but this works so much better.

Third person rather than first person stops this from feeling too much like Philippa Gregory, but actually the way the scene is set reminds me of PG before she stripped all the detail out of her books. There's just enough to paint a picture and not enough to overwhelm. I would actually have liked a line with the date and maybe location at the top of the chapter though. Even if I don't know the period, in fact especially if I don't know it, I like to orient myself.

I am really pleasurably surprised after everything I've heard about VB's earlier books. I wonder has she changed her style? But there have always been complaints about historical plausibility in her books, and that's an area where writers don't tend to improve.

I have to say so far the title doesn't seem desperately appropriate, the people seem to hate Alice.

[Leo62]

OK I'm in :D

Agree with your assessment so far - there's an awful lot of internal dialogue in this book, but the action is compelling enough to keep me reading.

Also, I think it benefits by the inevitable comparisons with the Campion book. Bennett's wheeler-dealer Essex girl is so much more convincing and engaging than the tedious whiner of TKM.

I found the details of the merchant shenanigans in the opening Chaucer bit somewhat confusing and a bit dull, but once we're into the snarl-off between Alice and Joan of Kent things begin to pick up.

Can't comment about the historical plausibility, but I always find her stuff psychologically very astute. A lot of people seemed to hate Queen of Silks, I suspect, because of its ambivalent (well, downright negative) portrayal of Richard III. But that's exactly what I liked about it :D

I've a feeling she's fitting up John of Gaunt for a similar role in this...

[Miss Moppet]

Agree with your assessment so far - there's an awful lot of internal dialogue in this book, but the action is compelling enough to keep me reading.

Yes, exactly. In fact, there's quite a bit of 'God's eye' POV which has been out of fashion for years, at least for commercial historical fiction.

Best example I can find is p.179, hope this is not too spoilery:

Alice has always prided herself on being more alert than most to the first whiff of danger, and quicker than most to neutralise it, too.

But she is far from even imagining the four people walking, very fast, around the cloister of the Abbey of St Albans, in a dusk with snow threatening, as the year 1374 draws to a close. There are three men and a woman in the group. It's the woman who's talking, flashing her eyes, sweeping her long cloak behind her. But all of them, one way or another, are Alice's enemies, or are about to be.

It's very Victorian, but it works. Like you I can't really judge how accurate it is, but VB tells the story with so much confidence and authority and enthusiasm, it really makes me want to find out more about Alice and the time she lived in. VB has done such a good job of getting the effect of the Black Death across in particular that I now understand why you felt it was missing from the Campion.

Also, I think it benefits by the inevitable comparisons with the Campion book. Bennett's wheeler-dealer Essex girl is so much more convincing and engaging than the tedious whiner of TKM.

Couldn't agree more. Campion-Alice was such a cupcake. Again I don't know enough of the facts to know if VB is maligning Alice, but she does at least make her human.

I found the details of the merchant shenanigans in the opening Chaucer bit somewhat confusing and a bit dull, but once we're into the snarl-off between Alice and Joan of Kent things begin to pick up.

Yes, the Chaucer bits are slower and now and again she puts in too much detail, but she's keeping the focus on Alice and keeping things moving along.

Can't comment about the historical plausibility, but I always find her stuff psychologically very astute. A lot of people seemed to hate Queen of Silks, I suspect, because of its ambivalent (well, downright negative) portrayal of Richard III. But that's exactly what I liked about it :D

I've a feeling she's fitting up John of Gaunt for a similar role in this...

Could be, she's certainly not romanticising him. Having said that, I thought his scene with Katherine Swynford was a bit cheesy, but it was from his POV. I would actually like a few scenes from Katherine's POV but I don't think we're going to get it.

Where the book is excelling for me so far is firstly in bringing Alice to life, and secondly having a coherent theme - the Wheel of Fortune, the get-rich-quick atmosphere that prevailed after the Black Death. It almost sounds like the 1920s, after the deaths in the First World War and the flu epidemic. Unless the book takes a nose dive in the second half, I would really like to find it on the shortlist for the Walter Scott prize next year. But as that seems to be heavily biased towards Booker nominees, I'm pretty sure I won't.

[Leo62]

Could be, she's certainly not romanticising him. Having said that, I thought his scene with Katherine Swynford was a bit cheesy, but it was from his POV. I would actually like a few scenes from Katherine's POV but I don't think we're going to get it.
I think you're right. She seems to have a somewhat jaundiced view of the de Roet sisters - or to be more precise, Alice does. But I guess that's not surprising given that they see her as a common upstart.

Where the book is excelling for me so far is firstly in bringing Alice to life, and secondly having a coherent theme - the Wheel of Fortune, the get-rich-quick atmosphere that prevailed after the Black Death. It almost sounds like the 1920s, after the deaths in the First World War and the flu epidemic.
Yes, I love the Wheel of Fortune stuff too - very apt. She really seems to catch the uncertainty and anxiety of this period - the sense of social and psychological turmoil that made the likes of John of Gaunt feel insecure but offered unique opportunities to a woman like Alice.

Have you got to the Wat Tyler bit yet? :D

[Miss Moppet]

Have you got to the Wat Tyler bit yet? :D

I'm past the court case. It was difficult to believe Alice really did sit herself down on the King's seat and started bawling the odds, but who knows, perhaps it really happened!

Yes, I like the way she's worked Wat Tyler into it. I actually think it's more likely Alice came from the merchant than the peasant class, but she writes it so it's credible.

[Miss Moppet]

Right, well, I'm done. I have to say John of Gaunt didn't come out of it very well - he seemed inept and vacillating and whenever there was a crisis he threw a woman under the bus (first Alice then Katherine Swynford).

The way VB explained his change of heart toward Alice - that she assumed he was going to bump off his nephew - worked but I don't even think there needed to be an explanation. He used her when she was useful, then dropped her when she became a liability - typical royal behaviour.

The attack on the Savoy was good. But I remember it being told completely differently in Seton's Katherine. Katherine was actually there and had to rush out the back door before she got impaled on a pike, or something. In this version Katherine was in the north, not in London, at the time of the Revolt.

[Misfit]

The attack on the Savoy was good. But I remember it being told completely differently in Seton's Katherine. Katherine was actually there and had to rush out the back door before she got impaled on a pike, or something. In this version Katherine was in the north, not in London, at the time of the Revolt.

IIRC Seton's notes at the end that she made some of that up for dramatic effect. If anyone has a copy of the new edition and could look that up for us that would help. I loaned my copy out never to be seen again...

[EC2]

Sorry I'm missing in action at the moment due to being out of the house a lot and trying to get my edits done, but Moppet and Leo, your opinions is very similar to mine on this. I thought even with its flaws, it knocked the spots off the Campion book. In terms of Katherine Swynford, my gut feeling says that Bennet is probably a lot closer to the actual Katherine than Seton was, although she is still a very secondary character in this.
I really enjoyed VB's portrayal of Alice Perrers.

[Miss Moppet]

IIRC Seton's notes at the end that she made some of that up for dramatic effect. If anyone has a copy of the new edition and could look that up for us that would help. I loaned my copy out never to be seen again...

I inherited my aunt's 1954 first edition. It has an author's note and an afterword but neither of them mention Katherine's whereabouts during the Revolt. The author's note says: 'I have based my story on actual history and tried never to distort time, or place, or character to suit my convenience.'

Do later editions have more detail about the writing of the book?

In terms of Katherine Swynford, my gut feeling says that Bennet is probably a lot closer to the actual Katherine than Seton was, although she is still a very secondary character in this.

What fascinates me is John's repudiation of Katherine - in the Seton Katherine left of her own accord for religious reasons, but VB's author's note says that the initiative came from John and that he referred to her as a 'she-devil.' But later on married her. So was it all for show and did they secretly have an understanding, or did he genuinely turn against her?

[Miss Moppet]

The Melusine Rating: Mild (one mention of Melusine)

[Leo62]

Finished already Miss M? :eek: Sorry I've been lagging behind - have reached around the half-way point - Alice and Chaucer are having a fling, and Alice is clearly heading for a fall...


What fascinates me is John's repudiation of Katherine - in the Seton Katherine left of her own accord for religious reasons, but VB's author's note says that the initiative came from John and that he referred to her as a 'she-devil.' But later on married her. So was it all for show and did they secretly have an understanding, or did he genuinely turn against her?

Either way, it makes him look like a s*&t. Like a modern politician who will say anything and backstab anyone to hold onto power.

[cw gortner]

I keep trying to buy this one via Book Depository and it's always out of stock, but Alibris has it listed as in stock! Maddening.

However, I'm going to have to read it. I liked Campion's take but would enjoy a different interpretation, plus I have enjoyed Bennett's work in the past.

[Leo62]

I'm bailing on p.320. Just can't really engage with either the situation or the characters - not sure if it's me or the book, cos I enjoyed her other stuff. Will give it another try sometime...

[Miss Moppet]

I'm bailing on p.320. Just can't really engage with either the situation or the characters - not sure if it's me or the book, cos I enjoyed her other stuff. Will give it another try sometime...

I just checked the book to find out where you were up to and I have to say I thought there was a definite sag at that point. I was confused as to why she decided to describe Alice's first trial through Chaucer's viewpoint rather than Alice's or at a stretch, John of Gaunt's. Alice gets arrested offstage as if she were a minor character. It does get better though.

[EC2]

I thought the pace sagged too and from what I remember it sounds to be at about that stage.

[Leo62]

I definitely *will* go back to it. I have to agree, Alice seems to be sidelined at times, considering she's supposed to be the main character! I've just got Fall of Giants from the library and I'm going to have to get through it in three weeks, so once that's done I'll try to get back to PQ.

[Miss Moppet]

I definitely *will* go back to it. I have to agree, Alice seems to be sidelined at times, considering she's supposed to be the main character! I've just got Fall of Giants from the library and I'm going to have to get through it in three weeks, so once that's done I'll try to get back to PQ.

I almost wondered at one point if VB didn't get more interested in Chaucer than she was in Alice, but had to keep Alice as the main focus because most HF readers are women, etc, etc...Not sure I'm right about that though.

Hope you enjoy Fall of Giants. Great to see this kind of saga making a comeback.

[Leo62]

I almost wondered at one point if VB didn't get more interested in Chaucer than she was in Alice, but had to keep Alice as the main focus because most HF readers are women, etc, etc...Not sure I'm right about that though.


Oh I think you are - it permeates the whole novel. I'm not sure why though - her characterisation of Chaucer doesn't exactly portray him as a riveting personality...

[Miss Moppet]

Oh I think you are - it permeates the whole novel. I'm not sure why though - her characterisation of Chaucer doesn't exactly portray him as a riveting personality...

Yes, and given the amount of page space he gets, that's one problem with the book. I thought he seemed far too naive for someone who had lived his whole life at court.