dunnett again
While roving the internets today I discovered someone had very handily typed out a passage from the book I happen to be reading at the moment, The Disorderly Knights by Dorothy Dunnett. So I copied and pasted it to Facebook, and now I'm going to paste it here.
[Scene: two 16th century crusaders talk shop with one skeptical free agent.]
“'Would you fight to cleanse the Qur’ân from the earth if the reward for death were the torments of Hell?' Lymond said.
There was a long pause. De Villegagnon, heated drew breath to reply and thought better of it. Outside, as the violence of the sun subsided, life began to stir in the narrow street. The shadows moved. 'I,' said Gabriel at length, looking directly at Lymond, his eyes calm as a child’s, 'have always sinned and never, consequently, deserved more than a hope of Paradise. But if I had, and by fighting the Turk I must give it up… then my answer is, yes. For those that follow me, that they might taste Heaven, I would fight, as I mean to fight; and suffer, as I should be made to suffer. No man could do more.'
'One man did not do as much,' said Lymond tranquilly, and saw Gabriel’s fair skin stained red from neck to brow. But instead of replying he crossed himself, and turning to the crucifix on the altar, bent in prayer.”
...
What I like about this passage is it shows the kind of writer Dunnett is, and the kind of reader she expects you to be. When I read this passage initially I sat back and thought, 'Jesus? Did Lymond really just... I think he did! Oh. Oh, Lymond.' But it's not as if he'll ever tell you. Dunnett won't, either. She'll give you characters' words, and characters' reactions to those words, but no explanations. This is what I mean when I say I'm not clever enough for these books (and why I love that).
But I also like how, throughout this book, Dunnett gives her reader plenty of opportunities to think that she'll fall into stereotypes based on race or class or cultural background. And yet she never does. Her characters are diverse and thoroughly nuanced; no one is made from card stock, and nearly everyone is playing a deeper game than it seems on first appearance.
Here's a short Checklist of Representation for these books: People of color in neutral and/or protagonist roles? Check. People with disabilities having a story arc that's bigger than their disability? Check. Queer characters? I think so, yes. Women whose characters are just as diverse and developed as their manly counterparts? Check.
And to top it all off, I'm reasonably certain it is all historically accurate.
Even better (or worse, depending on how you look at it), these books, set in the 16th century, were written in the 1960s and 70s. And yet there is fifty million times less racism and sexism (insidious or overt) in them than in many of the "epic" stories being put out there today.
So. Yes. If you like historical fiction, you could do a lot worse than The Lymond Chronicles.
[Scene: two 16th century crusaders talk shop with one skeptical free agent.]
“'Would you fight to cleanse the Qur’ân from the earth if the reward for death were the torments of Hell?' Lymond said.
There was a long pause. De Villegagnon, heated drew breath to reply and thought better of it. Outside, as the violence of the sun subsided, life began to stir in the narrow street. The shadows moved. 'I,' said Gabriel at length, looking directly at Lymond, his eyes calm as a child’s, 'have always sinned and never, consequently, deserved more than a hope of Paradise. But if I had, and by fighting the Turk I must give it up… then my answer is, yes. For those that follow me, that they might taste Heaven, I would fight, as I mean to fight; and suffer, as I should be made to suffer. No man could do more.'
'One man did not do as much,' said Lymond tranquilly, and saw Gabriel’s fair skin stained red from neck to brow. But instead of replying he crossed himself, and turning to the crucifix on the altar, bent in prayer.”
...
What I like about this passage is it shows the kind of writer Dunnett is, and the kind of reader she expects you to be. When I read this passage initially I sat back and thought, 'Jesus? Did Lymond really just... I think he did! Oh. Oh, Lymond.' But it's not as if he'll ever tell you. Dunnett won't, either. She'll give you characters' words, and characters' reactions to those words, but no explanations. This is what I mean when I say I'm not clever enough for these books (and why I love that).
But I also like how, throughout this book, Dunnett gives her reader plenty of opportunities to think that she'll fall into stereotypes based on race or class or cultural background. And yet she never does. Her characters are diverse and thoroughly nuanced; no one is made from card stock, and nearly everyone is playing a deeper game than it seems on first appearance.
Here's a short Checklist of Representation for these books: People of color in neutral and/or protagonist roles? Check. People with disabilities having a story arc that's bigger than their disability? Check. Queer characters? I think so, yes. Women whose characters are just as diverse and developed as their manly counterparts? Check.
And to top it all off, I'm reasonably certain it is all historically accurate.
Even better (or worse, depending on how you look at it), these books, set in the 16th century, were written in the 1960s and 70s. And yet there is fifty million times less racism and sexism (insidious or overt) in them than in many of the "epic" stories being put out there today.
So. Yes. If you like historical fiction, you could do a lot worse than The Lymond Chronicles.