Elizabeth Chadwick's Lady of the English

I'm always faced with a conundrum whenever I read a new Elizabeth Chadwick novel; I want to inhale it because I know how good it's going to be, yet I also want it to last as long as possible so I can luxuriate in the story. Let's just say that with Lady of the English, I managed to make the novel last nearly a week so I could continue to spend time in the magnificent world and lives EC has re-created. In fact, days after I finished, I'm still thinking about the story and marveling that Ms. Chadwick was not only able to stick to the historical facts but to bring them to life so vividly that I feel as though I actually know these characters.

Lady of the English might be more aptly titled Ladies of the English, in that it focuses not only Matilda, daughter of Henry I and rightful heir to the throne, but also Henry's wife Adeliza. While the majority of the action centers on Matilda's abusive marriage to Count Geoffrey of Anjou and her bids to attain the throne that her father had made his vassals swear to uphold for her, Adeliza is no minor character. Her barren marriage to Henry and her piety, as well as her friendship for her headstrong step-daughter give a perfect counterpoint to the often unlikeable Matilda. Matilda herself is brought to life in a way that keeps her from being the shrew she's often portrayed; while it's evident that she could have done many things to ensure her position, it is also just as evident how strongly she felt for her country and her family. Ms. Chadwick does a very credible job with both women, as unlike in temperament as they were. Added to this story is the unbelievable actual history which occurred (constant side changing, incredible escapes, daring raids) and you've got an epic adventure.


Lady of the English is everything I'd hoped it would be, and my appreciation for Ms. Chadwick as an author who successfully uses true historical fact to create high quality fiction is unbounded. While I'd known something about Matilda, I definitely feel as though I've been brought closer to an elusive woman whose tenacity and courage still comes through across the centuries. I'm glad I chose to luxuriate in this story because my knowledge is richer for it. Bar none, Elizabeth Chadwick is writing the best British historical fiction today, and Lady of the English is highly, highly recommended.
 
~taminator40

Rinaldi Back In Form

Fourteen year old Tacy Stryker is frustrated; the youngest and only girl of the family, she's left in the care of her mother and older brother David as she watches her other two older brothers and her father go off to fight for the Union. It's not that Tacy is a bad person, but she chafes under the close scrutiny of David, who is himself frustrated because an old injury keeps him from joining the Union Army. So when the battle of Gettysburg begins, Tacy's already frayed nerves take an even larger beating as David cracks down on her sassiness as the bullets fly by their home. Mix in keeping an African American friend and her mother safe, a fight with an old friend, and losing her beloved horse, and you have a young woman with very identifiable problems in a horrendous historical setting.

Rinaldi's been hit or miss with me for a few years now, but The Last Full Measure is a return to form for the author. Relatively short (just over 200 pages), the book focuses less on the actual fighting than it does on the relationships and feelings of the Stryker family. Expecting Rinaldi to gloss over events, I was pleasantly surprised at how well she described what was going on while still keeping the focus on rebellious Tacy. There is a shocker toward the end that had me glued to the pages until I could see how Tacy was going to survive; there are lots of emotions involved in these short pages. My only argument would be that I would have liked to have seen the book be a little longer, but that's a minor issue. I can now say I have lived through Gettysburg through the eyes of a young woman experiencing devastating loss and courage. Recommended.

~taminator40

Historical Fiction Conundrum

I read a lot of historical fiction; it's always fascinated me. I remember reading Little Women in fifth grade--I hid it inside my desk and read while the rest of the class droned through social studies' read aloud time(I figured out what paragraph would be mine to read aloud since it was round robin style reading, marked it, and was able to get back to Jo and her sisters). I also loved The Witch of Blackbird Pond and probably several others whose names are escaping me right now. But it was really Jean Plaidy and her numerous tomes on British history that pulled me during junior and senior high. She was the mark against which I measured other historical fiction for years. God bless Jean Plaidy.

As an adult, I discovered Sharon Kay Penman when I read When Christ and His Saints Slept. From there, I never looked back as I made my way through just about anything and everything historical. My current favorite author is Elizabeth Chadwick. She's the one who brings history to life in a way that sizzles. I can picture myself in the midst of any story she's written. The woman deserves a much, much wider audience. She's soooo good. Her research and accuracy drive the stories she writes, and it shows.

With all that said, I've gotten increasingly pickier the older I've gotten. It just bugs me to no end when someone is historically inaccurate. Small liberties don't bother me, such as moving an incident in time a bit to make it fit with the author's overall vision. But when things are blatantly wrong, it just floors me that an editor lets it slide. It's one thing to put your interpretation on an event based in fact, and quite another to not have done your research well enough to get names and places correct. A book I've read recently has some glaringly bad anachronisms in it, and I feel as though the author is deceiving her audience, most of whom probably don't know British history as well as I do. I think many will swallow her ideas hook, line, and sinker. Granted, I don't think the author probably knows she's made such glaring mistakes, but isn't that her responsibility? Or does she and the editor believe that it's okay to not fully research the facts just because they want to publish a book?

So, now here comes the hard part--when I do reviews, does it matter enough to point out the historically inaccurate things so that others aren't taken in by ignorance? Or should I just go for the overall feel of the book? I review on Amazon.com, and I know most people reading reviews there aren't as picky as I am about accuracy. But shouldn't they be? Because if the author is sloppy enough to give sons to a well known Duke who obviously didn't have any, or play fast and loose with births and deaths, doesn't that give all historical fiction a poor name if it eventually comes to light? Or am I too maniacal about all this?

I respect authors who have spent time thoroughly researching their subjects because I believe it comes through in their writing. The sad thing is, a good deal of those authors aren't quite as popular as some who either deliberately spin the facts or just don't give a damn about getting it all straight. It bothers me to think that a lot of people take Philippa Gregory's novels as truth, for example. She's a great writer, but her accuracy could be questioned on several points. But is it worth pointing out the inaccuracies? Does anyone even care? Or is it just about the tale?

~taminator40