For the King by Catherine Delors

Vanessa · Post by **Vanessa** » Sun August 22nd, 2010, 7:55 pm

Ooooh, look forward to that one!

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Sun August 22nd, 2010, 11:42 pm

You're good with little peasant girls, Catherine! Coming from a long line of peasants as I do, I appreciate that.

Catherine Delors · Post by **Catherine Delors** » Mon August 23rd, 2010, 9:40 am

Thanks, Vanessa!

Margaret, yes, I think histfic these days, in print and on film, tends to ignore regular people of the past, who after all represented 99% plus of the population. They are represented as ugly (horribly crooked teeth, while the upper classes apparently had access to modern orthodontics...) unwashed, stupid and just plain uninteresting.

This is what I disliked in Brotherhood of the Wolf: peasants were nonentities, just good enough to be eaten by the Beast. In fact, not only were they its victims, they brought the story to a close.

Anna Elliott · Post by **Anna Elliott** » Mon August 23rd, 2010, 7:51 pm

Definitely looking forward to this one, too! And I so absolutely agree about the issue of 'peasants', Catherine. I think it's a function of the majority of our primary sources focusing on the king lists, etc. (even more so in my period, when literally all you may know about a particular kingdom is the name of the ruler). But the vast, vast majority of the population would scarcely have known who the ruler was and would have lived a life that scarcely intersected with royalty at all.

Michy · Post by **Michy** » Mon August 23rd, 2010, 8:55 pm

I, for one, much prefer reading historical fiction about "everyday people" rather than about royalty.

Catherine Delors · Post by **Catherine Delors** » Mon August 23rd, 2010, 9:08 pm

[quote=""Anna Elliott""]Definitely looking forward to this one, too! And I so absolutely agree about the issue of 'peasants', Catherine. I think it's a function of the majority of our primary sources focusing on the king lists, etc. (even more so in my period, when literally all you may know about a particular kingdom is the name of the ruler). But the vast, vast majority of the population would scarcely have known who the ruler was and would have lived a life that scarcely intersected with royalty at all.[/quote]

Thank you, Anna! Actually for the French 18th century, we have a wealth of documentation on the "lower" classes, both rural and urban. I believe the slant comes from modern prejudices more than anything else.

Glad you see things this way, Michy!

Michy · Post by **Michy** » Tue August 24th, 2010, 1:58 am

Forgive me for getting off-topic, but I have a question about something you posted on another thread. I responded there, too, but thought there might be a better chance of you seeing it here.

You remarked that you don't enjoy Charles Dickens because he is difficult for non-native English speakers/readers. I find that very interesting and wonder why it is so? I find it especially curious in your case since, after reading your various posts here and especially after reading your book, I have to say that I would never be able to tell from your writing that English isn't your first language. You seem to have as good a command of it as any native speaker. So what is it about Dickens that makes him difficult in spite of your fluency in English?

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Tue August 24th, 2010, 5:04 am

They are represented as ugly (horribly crooked teeth, while the upper classes apparently had access to modern orthodontics...)

Ha! Actually, it was probably just the opposite. We've been chatting in the "Dentistry in the Past" thread about this very issue.

Catherine Delors · Post by **Catherine Delors** » Wed August 25th, 2010, 7:54 pm

[quote=""Michy""]Forgive me for getting off-topic, but I have a question about something you posted on another thread. I responded there, too, but thought there might be a better chance of you seeing it here.

You remarked that you don't enjoy Charles Dickens because he is difficult for non-native English speakers/readers. I find that very interesting and wonder why it is so? I find it especially curious in your case since, after reading your various posts here and especially after reading your book, I have to say that I would never be able to tell from your writing that English isn't your first language. You seem to have as good a command of it as any native speaker. So what is it about Dickens that makes him difficult in spite of your fluency in English?[/quote]

No problem, Michy, and sorry for the delayed response. First, I am spending some quality time with my Mom, and second, your question is not an easy one to answer. And thanks for your kind comments on my fluency in English!

Frankly, Dickens puzzles me. I have never been able to finish any of his novels, while I am usually obstinate in this regard, and I love many of his Victorian contemporaries: Trollope, Eliot, Emily Bronte, among many others. Yet I can recognize Dickens's intelligence and sense of humour. But I get lost: an army of characters, thickets of plot twists, and just, on my part, an overwhelming lack of interest in any of it... Yet he is universally recognized as one of the greatest English writers. The only explanation is that I don't "get it" because English is not my native language.

Catherine Delors · Post by **Catherine Delors** » Wed August 25th, 2010, 7:55 pm

[quote=""Margaret""]Ha! Actually, it was probably just the opposite. We've been chatting in the "Dentistry in the Past" thread about this very issue.[/quote]

Margaret, do you have the link to this thread handy?