ext_7722 (
childeproof.livejournal.com) wrote in
trennels2006-08-02 01:05 pm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
Player's Boy/Players and the Rebels
An uncommonly nice surprise on my birthday was the GGB Player's Boy and, even more lovely, a perfect first edition hardback of The Players and the Rebels, from my partner. I've never owned a copy of either, and hadn't read them since an illicit speedread in the Bodleian some time ago, when I was supposed to be engaged in altogether more austere matters. Needless to say, I read them this time in a single, gorging session.
Anyway, it's been pointed out by everyone that Forest's period characters are rather twentieth-century and middle-class, but it occurred to me on this reading that Edmund Shakespeare (Ned) is in fact an Elizabethan, male Tim Keith - he and Nicholas have precisely the same rather edgy relationship via Will, as Tim and Nicola have via Lawrie. (Which makes W Shakespeare, obviously, Lawrie!) Then it occurred to me that there are all kinds of other character half-parallels between the 20thc. Marlow books and the historical ones. Humfrey Danvers, physically timid and indecisive, but a brilliant musician, is a version of Lawrie (a total flake, scared of lighting the gas, but a brilliant actor) with a dash of Peter. Will, self-contained, clever, unobtrusively authoritative, is a combination of Rowan, a more accessible Jan Scott and a dash of Giles - although Richard Burbage is probably more of the swashbuckling side of Giles. Wyn Burbage is a more appreciated Ann, kind and concerned, rather trite.
I could go on, until I claimed that John Hemings was in fact an Elizabeth Miss Keith, but I won't. But I'd be interested to hear whether people genuinely think that Nicholas is simply a transplanted Nicola, clever, sensitive, brave, charismatic, violently honourable...?
Anyway, it's been pointed out by everyone that Forest's period characters are rather twentieth-century and middle-class, but it occurred to me on this reading that Edmund Shakespeare (Ned) is in fact an Elizabethan, male Tim Keith - he and Nicholas have precisely the same rather edgy relationship via Will, as Tim and Nicola have via Lawrie. (Which makes W Shakespeare, obviously, Lawrie!) Then it occurred to me that there are all kinds of other character half-parallels between the 20thc. Marlow books and the historical ones. Humfrey Danvers, physically timid and indecisive, but a brilliant musician, is a version of Lawrie (a total flake, scared of lighting the gas, but a brilliant actor) with a dash of Peter. Will, self-contained, clever, unobtrusively authoritative, is a combination of Rowan, a more accessible Jan Scott and a dash of Giles - although Richard Burbage is probably more of the swashbuckling side of Giles. Wyn Burbage is a more appreciated Ann, kind and concerned, rather trite.
I could go on, until I claimed that John Hemings was in fact an Elizabeth Miss Keith, but I won't. But I'd be interested to hear whether people genuinely think that Nicholas is simply a transplanted Nicola, clever, sensitive, brave, charismatic, violently honourable...?
no subject
no subject
Also, Nicholas is far more actively delighted to see H when he gets back from accompanying Harry on his various disasters than Nicola ever is at re-encountering Esther. (Actually, I've always been slightly puzzled at Nicholas's intensely-felt friendship for dithery Humfrey.)
no subject
I was comprehensively put off the historicals by the lecture on them at the Forest Conference, but am now wondering whether I should read TPB after all so that I can join in the discussion.
no subject
As for her characters seeming rather 20th century middle class, my impression from the talk which so put off
no subject
no subject
Actually, possibly it's just that I don't want there to be No More AF I Haven't Read.
no subject
I think many 'adult' historical novelists (Michel Faber, looking at you) could learn from AF's lightness of touch with period detail and dialogue, which I think are hugely impressive. And I very much like her ironic, private, tolerant WS. Slightly unreasonable, I would have said, to complain of his being 'too nice' when we know almost nothing about the historical WS. Admittedly, he writes villainy with genius, but could well have been a baby-kissing, cuddlesome Panglossian optimist while writing his revenge tragedies...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Actually, one of the reasons I am enjoying the Nicholas/Humphrey relationship so much is the contrast between Nicholas' wholehearted commitment as opposed to Nicola's more lukewarm, perhaps slightly patronising friendship with Esther!