A couple of people asked: <As a Cadfael fan, I need to know - please - what
is all wrong about the novels?>
Before I get in a bit too deep, let me say first that I absolutely LOVE
everything Ellis Peters/Edith Pargeter has ever written, from her historical
novels (OK i have a hard time getting through the one on Richard) to her
mysteries. Cadfael is one of my favorites, so much so I am refusing to read
all the ripoff ones that have been coming out recently. I adore them. BUT
I do not make the mistake of thinking they are an accurate representation of
"medieval history" or culture. Despite what seems to be the undeniable fact
that they are "wrong" about some aspects of the culture and society, they
are "right" in other ways that have to do with being darn good reads and
very popular. I hope you've also read her contemporary mysteries as well!
My housemate (when asked she reminded me she'd only read half a one years
ago, along with another friend in their medieval ph.d. program, and hated it
so much she'd never finished it, and refuses to watch the televised version,
which was pretty shoddy although I will always watch anything with Derek
Jacobi in it) gave me a few examples of what she remembered: the major
problem was the overall sense of late 19th-20th century rationalism that
Cadfael exemplifies. I realized she's right: he's always looking for the
'rational' answer when others around him attribute it to mysterious cureses,
god striking a blasphemer down, etc, more mystical explanations. I have to
admit he acts an awful lot like a medieval Sherlock Holmes (she loves Holmes
as do I), but that's anachronistic. Peters doesn't present the anachronism
in the same way Eco does, apparently. (I haven't read Eco).
She also says that someone who had served as a foot soldier during the
Crusades would not be a Benedictine monk, but a lay brother (I cannot
remember if Cadfael is a full monk or not, but she had the impression from
the book she started that he had a much higher status than would be
possible). So there are problems with the way the books present the
medieval class/caste consciousness and system, both within and outside the
order. She says he has too much freedom in terms of skipping the various
duties of the day, and also the mixture of literacy (apparently shown by his
speaking as well) doesn't mix well with the kind of herb and garden work
he's also doing. I'm probably not doing too good a job of conveying her
points because I am a 20th century literature person.
She does think Tolkien did a good job of presenting SOME aspects of medieval
life in his fantasy (which isn't set in medieval Europe as a bunch of the
BAD fantasties are), but then he was an academic who was trained in the
field. Ditto Eco and Lewis. But most of the Celtic and other faux medieval
fantasies out there she considers even worse than Peters.
My friend also reads historical novels or mysteries set in periods other
than her own, and enjoys them much more because she doesn't recognize all of
THEIR problems, so this view is obviously a function of how much knowledge
the reader has.
I think the "problems" that she points out are one reason why the Cadfael
series is so popular with contemporary readers. If she was really
presenting the different world that is medieval Shrewsbury, we'd have to
work harder to "get it." SF writers run into the same problem: make the
culture too alien, and it's a hard read. We can all think of many examples,
I'm sure (C.J. Cherryh presents HARD alien cultures; Jo Clayton's cultures,
on the surface very alien and different, are awfully similar to each other
and to ones we'd recognize, I think). Present too accurate a portrayal of
the medieval culture/world-view, and many 20th century readers would
struggle. I'm thinking even of Connie Willis' DOMESDAY BOOK, much harder to
enter into than Cadfael.
My friend's currently reading a romance novel set in England during the
1200's (research: we're planning on writing one, just for fun and an escape
from our daily lives), and is muttering about the way the novel shows people
wearing cotton underwear which of course did not exist in England at that
time. The heroine also has straight white teeth and has invented
toothbrushing! I've read some criticism of these historical romances that
points out they have to transpose a 20th century worldview of hygiene and
relationships and other stuff to this "exotic" past setting, or they
wouldn't have any readers at all. Most popular "historical" novels (romance
or otherwise) are not historically accurate: my friend is taking advantage
of this in an assignment that asks students to read a novel and evaluate it
in terms of the historical information. The joke is, one of her students
picked Peters!
Hope this clears things up a bit--I'm not at all saying don't read or don't
enjoy Peters; just be careful about assuming it's an accurate presentation
of the history and culture, or that's the novels are parallel to Eco (whom
she thinks is quite accurate in many ways).
Robin
Robin_Reid@tamu-commerce.edu.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:54 PDT