The Hall of Revels scene and what follows is what I mentioned before as my Favourite Ever. Feathered death's heads! Gentlemen! And then Lymond playing the harpsichord very quietly, oh God.
There's one scene in particular in Checkmate that equals that level of under-the-table (literally!) hilarity, but it's always poised so evenly with tragedy in Dunnett.
Lymond/Philippa is so very epic and overblown and only gets more so, but I can't help shipping them with an unholy passion. HIS LOVE FOR HER LITERALLY BLINDS HIM, okay. And she read his books!
Re: Russia, I was recently reading a critique of New Historicist literary criticism that was like, "You could have a book called Pursued by a Bear: Images of Russia in Renaissance Literature, and argue that the topic of Russia in Shakespeare has been grossly overlooked up until now", and obviously he treats this as ridiculous and a symptom of all that is wrong with our discipline, but now I kind of really want to write that book someday. Because it would be interesting to see how the Muscovy Company did affect English perceptions of Russia in the 16th century. All the "slaveborn Russian" stuff in The Duchess of Malfi, for one.
I also think that Dunnett may see a connection between Russia and Scotland (apart from St. Andrew) as these cold countries on the fringes of Europe that were seen as barbaric by everyone else. The fact that Lymond doesn't manage to Fix Russia is presented as a tragedy, but so is the fact that Macbeth doesn't manage to Fix Scotland in King Hereafter, and that was his proper life's work.
I'm struggling with the whole premise of "fixing Russia." Maybe I'm a cynic where Russia is concerned, but I have trouble imagining anything Lymond could do in his lifetime that would significantly alter its overall future. Of course there's probably a difference between what he envisioned could happen in Russia and what we know happened during Ivan IV's reign, but presumably he wanted to drag it into the 16th century, as it were, and create an empire with international ties and a strong army, which happened eventually anyway. The best thing his restraining influence could do was to prevent Ivan from killing his heir, thus preventing the Time of Troubles, and possibly handing some wars better, but in the grand scheme of things, what would it have changed? Of course, I'm looking at it from a post-Soviet perspective, which is entirely different from that of Lymond, or, say, a 17th century serf whose right to move to a new landlord was removed during Ivan IV's reign.
God, I hope this made sense. I'm no historian and I know there are subtleties and very likely not-so-subtleties I am not getting.
I will have to read King Hereafter. It's interesting about the connection between Russia and Scotland. I think a fleshed-out Russian character (not the Tsar) might have helped to soften Russia's image in this book.
Oh, I'm not sure the idea of single-handedly fixing a country is historically sound either, but the series seems to be predicated on the fact that Lymond has that sort of power, or at least everyone believes he does. (His predecessor, in the House of Niccolo, manages to singlehandedly break one and put it back together again after he comes to feel bad.) Having a strong economy, peace, and good art seems to be the criteria, mostly.
King Hereafter is very good, I think, though also very long and full of complex 11th century politics. And more Russian characters would definitely have been great to see!
There's one scene in particular in Checkmate that equals that level of under-the-table (literally!) hilarity, but it's always poised so evenly with tragedy in Dunnett.
Lymond/Philippa is so very epic and overblown and only gets more so, but I can't help shipping them with an unholy passion. HIS LOVE FOR HER LITERALLY BLINDS HIM, okay. And she read his books!
Re: Russia, I was recently reading a critique of New Historicist literary criticism that was like, "You could have a book called Pursued by a Bear: Images of Russia in Renaissance Literature, and argue that the topic of Russia in Shakespeare has been grossly overlooked up until now", and obviously he treats this as ridiculous and a symptom of all that is wrong with our discipline, but now I kind of really want to write that book someday. Because it would be interesting to see how the Muscovy Company did affect English perceptions of Russia in the 16th century. All the "slaveborn Russian" stuff in The Duchess of Malfi, for one.
I also think that Dunnett may see a connection between Russia and Scotland (apart from St. Andrew) as these cold countries on the fringes of Europe that were seen as barbaric by everyone else. The fact that Lymond doesn't manage to Fix Russia is presented as a tragedy, but so is the fact that Macbeth doesn't manage to Fix Scotland in King Hereafter, and that was his proper life's work.
*valiantly resists the Dunnett shelf*
Reply
God, I hope this made sense. I'm no historian and I know there are subtleties and very likely not-so-subtleties I am not getting.
I will have to read King Hereafter. It's interesting about the connection between Russia and Scotland. I think a fleshed-out Russian character (not the Tsar) might have helped to soften Russia's image in this book.
Reply
King Hereafter is very good, I think, though also very long and full of complex 11th century politics. And more Russian characters would definitely have been great to see!
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment