Crown and Country

Author: David Starkey

Genre: Non-Fiction, Historical

Rating: A-

This book could be divided into three parts, beginning, middle, and end, each part which is rather different and each part which I have different feelings about.  Throughout it, historian David Starkey describes the rise and falls (and there are many, many falls) of the men and women who have served as monarch of the nation that is now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Covering literally two thousand years of history Starkey traces the history of the monarchy, and the history of the nation itself, from its inception in the Celtic British period to the modern day Windsors.

The beginning part of this story, in my opinion, is the period of Britons, Anglo-Saxons, and Danes, ending with the death of Harold Godwinson and the Norman invasion.  William the Conqueror starts the middle section, and it continues on through the Normans, into the Plantagenets, and its cadet branches the Lancasters and Yorks, and ending with the rise of the House of Tudor.  The final part starts with the children of Henry VIII, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth, and the Nine Days Queen, Jane, and continues through the Stuarts, Hanovers, the short-lived Saxe-Coburg and Gothas, and the current Windsors.  While each part is in itself extremely interesting and well linked - both with the contents of itself, and with the overall arch of the story it's telling - the way they're handled is somewhat different.  You can tell that Starkey prefers what I'm calling his middle part to the other points in British history, simply by the amount of detail that he uses when discussing the Normans, Plantagenets, and the first Tudors.  The bulk of the book is in itself a glance at the Kings and Queens of Britain and the making of the monarchy, but somehow it feels as though there is more detail to the stories of some of the earlier monarchs than there is in the later monarchs, or at least more of an attempt.  Obviously there is considerably less in regards to the Britons or the early Anglo-Saxons, who existed in a largely unrecorded period, but following the rise of Wessex and the subsequent rise of the Normans the amount of detail grows and it feels as though Starkey is really interested in what he's writing about.  Then, suddenly the amount of detail begins to drop and his interest appears to wane.

This can be seen just through the division of the chapters.  No monarch gets their own chapter in "Part I  - Beginnings," although for a good portion of this section the reigns are short and factual knowledge is limited - and it should be noted Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinson, the latter whom had a very short reign, don't share their chapter with any earlier monarchs.  Each of the Norman kings gets his own chapter, as do the early Plantagenet kings - yes, Stephen and Matilda share one, but in a way they also share a reign.  Things move quicker with the later Plantagenets, particularly as the War of the Roses comes into force, but once again this kind of makes sense - the Richards, Henrys, and Edwards all kind of go together in terms of their historical greatness.  Where Starkey kind of loses me, however, is in giving Henry VIII his own chapter (deserving), but then dividing the reign of Elizabeth I into two, to be shared in a chapter with her siblings (no special chapter header for Jane Grey) first, and a shared chapter with her successor James VI & I and his son Charles I.  The reign of Elizabeth I is kind of a big deal - so big, in fact, that the era was named after it.  It is one of those reigns that kind of deserves its own chapter.  Likewise, Victoria deserves her own chapter, if only because of the length of her reign.  Dividing into two and wedging it into chapters that deal first with her uncles, George IV and William IV, and then with her son, grandson, and great-grandsons, in order Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI, does not do her justice.

Nor, for that matter, does the whole way that he treats the 20th century (or several other centuries for that matter).  The closer to the present day the more the the reigns seem to be a bit squished together, the more the story becomes rather rushed.  Events like the two World Wars, the Jacobite Risings, Napoleon, the Abdication Crisis, etc, are all kind of glanced over.  There's also the idea of the Hanoverian monarchs having poor relationships with their parents, or conversely their eldest children. While Starkey touches on it he seems to be unaware of it at times - even going so far as to inaccurately say that the relationship between Prince Philip and Prince Charles shows the resumption of this Hanover tradition for the first time in three generations - it's not, not at all.  While there was a good relationship between George VI and Elizabeth II, the relationship between brothers Edward VIII and George VI with their father, George V, was at best less than stellar.  Likewise, while the relationship between George V and his father, Edward VII, was great, he was the younger brother, his elder brother, Prince Albert Victor, having had a very bad relationship with the King.  This trend continues too; Edward VII and his father, Prince Albert; Victoria and her mother the Duchess of Kent; George IV and George III; George II and George I... it continues.

The one thing that I really want to give Starkey credit for is the fact that while this book is very much historical, Starkey uses a narrative approach to make it interesting and appealing.  It was really great.  I also really enjoyed how he addressed and made reference to the different myths and legends that have been attached to the monarchs he's discussing, like the means of the death of Edward II.  I actually kind of want to re-read this book just so that I can take note of every time homosexuality, homoeroticism, etc, comes up.  It's actually a lot more than one might expect.  I also wouldn't mind re-reading to take extra note of ever usurping, rebellion, revolt, civil war, revolution, etc.  It's actually a lot more than one would think - in all honesty, going into this, I knew of the Norman Conquest, the struggles between Stephen and Matilda, the back-and-forth between Henry VI and Edward IV, and the subsequent usurpers Richard III and Henry VII, the Civil War and rise of Cromwell, and then of course the banishing of James II.  In a lot of ways, though, that's only the tip of the iceberg; there's so much more to it all.

The Captive of Kensington Palace

Author: Jean Plaidy

Genre: Historical

Rating: C+

The Captive of Kensington Palace is the first in historical fiction author Jean Plaidy's Queen Victoria series and follows the life of the future Queen in the years of her childhood, primarily during the reign of her uncle King William IV - the book picks up shortly before the death of George IV and ends with the death of William IV.  Following a number of characters, but centred entirely around Victoria, it shows the conflicts between the English house of Hanover and the German house of Saxe-Coburg and Gothas which compete over control of Victoria - on one side is her long deceased father's family, and the uncles through which she will inherit the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and on the other side is her ever present and rather domineering mother and her mother's rather ambitious comptroller Sir John Conroy.

The thing that both makes this an exemplary work of historical fiction while also seriously disabling the book is Plaidy's adherence to history.  Often historical fiction looks at events from the perspective of fictional characters, created for the purpose of giving the author some creative licence, but Plaidy's works (both in regards to Captive and her many other books) instead look at things through the eyes of the real people during the real events.  She relies heavily on the use of non-fiction sources and primary sources - in this case including the letters and diaries of Victoria, passages of which are outright quoted here.   In a way, I really love it because it gives you such a strong sense of what actually happened, but at the same time it kind of makes the story itself a bit jilted and repetitive.  Peoples day-to-day lives tend to not be all that interesting, even when they're royalty, and can be rather repetitive, as we see in this work.  The problems that continually rise up, and the conversations (and arguments) that happen all just repeat the same things over and over again - Victoria will be Queen one day, William IV is like his father and destined for the straight jacket, the Duke of Cumberland wants to do away with Victoria although he will take the kingdom of Hanover as second place, the Duchess of Kent and Sir John want to control Victoria and fear the influence of the King and his wife, the King has no legitimate children and his wife is rather plain, but they're both in love.... it goes on like that.

The other problem with this book, and its follow up The Queen and Lord M, is that Victoria is very young and naive here, and as such her voice gets rather annoying after awhile. I found myself wanting to yell at her half the time, and tell her to learn about the position she is about to have thrust upon her - or even better, to yell at William IV or the Duchess of Kent for allowing Victoria to remain so uneducated on the matter.  In the case of the Duchess I really got it - an educated Victoria was a Victoria she could not control - but it pissed me off in regards to William IV, who did not want his heir controlled by the Duchess.  But then, that was the way history worked out here, so I can't really fault Plaidy, can I?  Overall, not Plaidy's best work, but still enjoyable.

Drums of Autumn

Author: Diana Gabaldon

Genre: Historical, Romance, Sci-Fi

Rating: A-

The fourth instalment in the Outlander series, Drums of Autumn takes our heroes Claire and Jamie Fraser to the American colonies just before the American Revolution.  While Claire knows what is going to happen she's not certain an all the details and knows that she and her family must walk a thin line so as to survive the Revolution with their lives intact.  Newcomers to the land, the Frasers must establish themselves and Jamie dreams of gathering up the men that he was in prison with.  Meanwhile, in the mid-20th century their daughter Brianna is coming to terms with now essentially being an orphan, having lost her mother and the father that she has only just learned of.  In order to come to terms with this, Brianna and the historian Roger Wakefield seek out information about Claire and Jamie, with the hope of discovering what happens to them.

The question that I always have here is just why Claire and Jamie decide to settle in America, at least knowing what they know.  Regardless of their allegiance to the British crown (which does exist for Claire if not her husband), being somewhere largely unaffected by the war just seems kind of safer and in the long run smarter.  Once they commit to making life work in America I get why they chose to stay, but I always wonder why they decided to make that commitment in the first place.  I don't even buy that Jamie wouldn't have had friends or family in Canada to help him establish himself - Jamie seems to have friends or family just about everywhere he goes.

That being said, I did like the general story of Drums.  Things get a lot more complicated in this part of the series than they ever seemed to be in the first two (or three) books, but it's an enjoyable complicated.  I am never too sure about Brianna and Roger as characters, and even less so as time travellers.  Claire seems to have fit in both the 18th and the 20th century, while Brianna and Roger seem to only fit in the 20th, despite their travelling to the 18th (and Jamie, who is stationary in time, doesn't seem as though he would fit in the 20th, although if given the opportunity and need I have no doubt that he would make it work if it meant being with Claire).  I do like the overarching villain of Stephen Bonnett, though, and find the threat that he adds to things to be really interesting.  I grew to kind of hate Geillis in the earlier books, and not in a good way, so I was glad to see that they were really done with her and had moved on to a new threat - or to at least be given that feeling.

Titanic: Blood and Steel

Starring: Kevin Zegers, Liam Cunningham, Alessandra Mastronardi, Derek Jacobi, Neve Campbell, Chris Noth, Billy Carter, Ophelia Lovibond, Branwell Donaghey, Martin McCann

Creator: Ciaran Donnelly

Genre: Drama, Historical, Miniseries

Rating: C

I have really mixed feelings about this show.  On the one hand, it wasn't poorly acted and a lot of elements of the plot were actually really interesting.  I enjoyed the ongoing labour and religious disputes between the different levels of people building the Titanic.  The struggles of protagonist Mark Muir (Zegers) are really interesting too, both in terms of his personal and work life.  That having been said, however, Titanic: Blood and Steel has very little to do with the Titanic, despite being about the boat.  It misrepresents history in such a way that I can't help but feel it's rather an insult to the real history here.  To the real people who built the Titanic.

Titanic: Blood and Steel is not your traditional Titanic show.  Rather than focus on the events of the sailing and its disastrous ending, Blood and Steel looks at the building of the ship and the people who invested in it before its maiden voyage.  Here we see some of the classic figures in a Titanic story, the big names that we've come to know - Thomas Andrews (Carter), J.P. Morgan (Noth), and Lord Pirrie (Jacobi).  What takes more of a focus, however, than these actual people, is the account of the very fictional Dr. Mark Muir, an Irish immigrant and American engineer who specializes in studying steel.  We also see struggles of the Irish steelworkers, lead by the McCann brothers, Michael (Donaghey) and Conor (McCann), and the Italian artisans, who worked on the boat.

Once again, the thing that really got me here was how much the focus was on highly fictionalized events.  Blood and Steel was at its best when it was looking at the very real problems that Titanic had to overcome in her making, and at its worst when it was focused on Mark complaining about the impurities in the steel.  If this series is to be taken seriously, then it's to be believed that it was these impurities that caused the Titanic to sink and 1,502 people to die, and not the whole hitting an iceberg.  In my opinion there are a lot of really interesting stories that can be told about the Titanic, both during its building and its sailing, that look a lot more at the actual history of the boat.

That being said, I don't think you need to use real people when constructing a work of historical fiction.  There is that "fiction" element to it, and it can be a lot easier to use fictional characters to depict real events.  James Cameron's Titanic is a great example of how this can happen, and I think the other miniseries out this year from the minds of Nigel Strafford-Clark and Julian Fellowes is another good example.  Both works use a basic story that we already know in order to tell us a new story.  They interweave characterizations of real people, that are largely based on documentation about them, and fictional characters, and base it around one very real event.  Jack and Rose were not in themselves real, but the way their story is told gives us an idea of the real Titanic.  Neither Jack nor Rose are elevated in their importance, they are very much the everyman type character (although, in the case of Rose, with a highly elevated class).  The 2012 Titanic is even better in this regards because it spends a lot more time looking at people who actually were real.  Blood and Steel, however, takes the name of the Titanic and a few events that occurred during its making then weaves together this very fictional story, degrading the historical figures in order to elevate the fictional ones.  In the end it just kind of struck a nerve with me.

Speaking of endings, there is also the problem of Blood and Steel's actual ending.  The miniseries ends where most Titanic works begin, with the boat embarking on its doomed voyage, leaving the viewer to wonder just which of the cast members who happen to be on the boat survive.  While I liked the idea of some of the cast being on it, the way they did this was, in a lot of ways, really contrived and a bit forced.  The speculation itself is also rather fun, in a way, but it also leaves the question open as to whether or not there was supposed to be some sort of follow up to this series - Titanic: Blood and Steel part 2.  Because of the way that they did it, it really felt like they weren't ending the series.

Lincoln (2012)

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Halbrook, Tommy Lee Jones

Director: Steven Spielberg

Genre: Biography, Drama, Historical

Rating: A

"Do you think we choose the times into which we are born? Or do we fit the times we are born into?"

This movie is going to win Oscars.  That's my prediction.  It's really kind of obvious that it was going to get nominations - this is the type of film that is made for the purpose of winning awards.  Usually I'm a bit iffy about that type of film and find them to be a bit hit or miss, assuming I even go to see them.  But the trailers for Lincoln caught my attention, as did the cast, so I decided to give it a chance and went in expecting good things.  I'm so glad I did, because Lincoln met and exceeded every expectation I had.  This movie was great.  Absolutely amazing.

Lincoln is based on the biography Team of Rivals: The Politicial Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin and follows the life of Abraham Lincoln (Day-Lewis) during the final months of his life as he pushes the Thirteenth Amendment forward.  This is a heavy issue and Lincoln faces opposition from within his own party, the Republicans, and his opposition, the Democrats.  Lincoln shows just how much Lincoln had to push in order to make this work and how he struggled to make the amendment happen.  Hanging over it all is the ongoing American Civil War and the fact that Lincoln is being pushed in many ways regarding that; the founder of the Republican Party, Francis Preston Blair (Halbrook), is pushing Lincoln to meet with representatives from the Confederate States and negotiate a peace, the Radical Republicans, lead by Thaddeus Stevens (Jones) want more and fear Lincoln will turn his back on emancipation, his eldest son Robert (Gordon-Levitt) is anxious to be allowed to enlist, while his wife Mary (Field), who isn't exactly mentally stable, is strongly opposed to Robert being allowed to enlist.  Aiding him is his somewhat reluctant Secretary of State, William H. Seward (Straitharn) and the morally questionably operative William N. Bilbo (Spader) - whose name made me think of The Hobbit everytime it was said.

The one thing I disliked about this movie was the way that it inconsistently made note of people, dates, and places.  Despite being really interested in history, the American Civil War is a period that I've never really studied - I'm not an American, and thus never really studied American history in school.  Consequently, I was really unaware on a lot of the specifics about dates, locations, and names - I knew the gist of it going in, but not a lot.  I really appreciated the little titles pointing out who different people were, or were they were, or what date it was - I thought each thing was really important to the story and added some clarification for viewers who don't know the history.  What I disliked, however, was that it was very inconsistent.  The film repeatedly tells you who the three Confederate negotiators are, but doesn't really provide as much information, if any, regarding the Republicans and Democrats who play a far greater role in the story.  I actually had to look online to find the names of the some of the characters, notably Fernando Wood (Lee Pace), who really serves as the primary antagonist in the film.

Asides from that inconsistency, however, I really thought this film was damn near perfect.  The pacing was great, the dialogue as great, the monologues were even better.  Even though I knew how the whole thing ended I was still anxious and worried about whether or not Lincoln would manage to pull through.  Possibly because it's telling a story that the audience is assumed to already know Lincoln is as much a character movie as it is about the history at play here.  Lincoln, obviously, is the main focus here and the insight that Lincoln provides into this man is just awesome.  I absolutely loved his monologues and the ways in which his stories revealed a lot about him.  Other characters that really shined here are that of Thaddeus Stevens - who got in a few good monologues as well - Mary Todd Lincoln, and Robert Todd Lincoln.  You really got to see the problems within the Lincoln family, and the struggles that they each face as the result of the position that Abraham Lincoln achieved.  In a way the title Lincoln can be seen as referring not just to Abraham, but also his wife and two surviving sons - Lincoln's youngest son, Tad (Gulliver McGrath), is also portrayed and while you get to see a lot less of who he is you really get to see the relationship between father-and-son here, and the stark contrast between that father-son relationship and the relationship that Lincoln had with Robert.

The other thing that I really liked about this film was the way it started and ended.  The start has has Lincoln listening to two soldiers recite him the Gettysburg Address in a way that is both awesome and funny at the same time.  The ending is a flashback to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.  I really liked the way that these two speeches really bookended each other and the contrast in how they were done - one is one of the most famous speeches Lincoln ever gave and is told to him, and the viewer, by two nameless soldiers.  The other is one that at least in my understanding is less famous but is told by him and really nicely wraps up the film.  This one is definitely worth seeing.

Voyager

Author: Diana Gabaldon
Genre: Historical, Romance, Sci-Fi
Rating: B-

The third novel in Diana Gabaldon's critically acclaimed Outlander series, I have to say that I think that Voyager is probably the weakest, at least in so far as her novels go.  While there is a story here a lot of it seems to be more about a justification of her desire to reunite protagonists Jamie and Claire and move them, once again, towards the action.  While I appreciate the sentiment and I do largely agree with the desire to reunite our time traveller with her soul mate, there is still a big part of me that can't help but feel as though more so than most of Gabaldon's books, Voyager really fails to stand out on its own and really serves instead as a bridge covering the cap between two separate parts of the series.

Voyager picks up where its predecessor, Dragonfly in Amber, left off, with Claire facing the revelation that Jamie is not dead, as she had long believed, but rather very much alive - or at least, would be, 200 years in the past.  Time travel inherently makes understanding things like that more complicated.  Claire sets out on a journey to reunited with her man, while the daughter that she is leaving behind, Brianna, comes to terms with the knowledge that the man she thought was her father wasn't, and that she's now about to lose the only parent that she has left.  Meanwhile, Roger Wakefield is faced with the very pressing desire to be a big part of Brianna's life.

I already said this, but I think it bares repeating.  This book is a bridge between two connected but rather separate stories; Outlander and Dragonfly are about Scotland and the Rising, while the later novels are about America and the revolution.  This book serves to connect the two and to establish the younger generation.  While Jamie and Claire continue to play important roles in these books, in a manner of speaking they also become more and more about Brianna, Roger, Young Ian, and other characters more their age.  I understand that, and I really respect that, although I do think that in later books the series becomes a bit bogged down by both the characters and the number of different plots going on.  Gabaldon is a great writer, but sometimes it becomes a bit much and at points it begins to lose the charm of Outlander.

The other problem with Voyager is that in being a bridge book the plot is somewhat lacking.  There's a lot of set up here for a major future plot device, and likewise there's a lot of conclusion here for some of the hanging threads of previous devices.  In as much as the characters might at times bog down later books, one of the things that I love about Gabaldon in general is the plethora of really deep and unique characters.  Voyager doesn't lack in them at all, but for much of the time it almost seems like they're there not so much to introduce or partake in any plot, but to simply exist.  In a way this works, but in a way it doesn't.  The way that it really doesn't work, at least for me, is the fact that there is almost no continuity in these characters - the bulk of them were never introduced before Voyager and do not appear again afterwards.  This is really hugely disappointing, just because I like to see the ways in which these characters appear to have developed off screen.  This idea continues as well; a lot of the characters introduced in Outlander and Dragonfly no longer appear to exist in Voyager.  While it's understandable that Claire has been gone (and presumed dead) for some twenty years, there's still a part of me that wants to see her seek out some of her old companions.  She might not wonder what happened to them, but I do.

A Dragonfly in Amber

Author: Diana Gabaldon
Genre: Historical, Romance, Sci-Fi
Rating: B+

The sequel to Outlander, A Dragonfly in Amber is a bit more jumpy than its predecessor – particularly in the start and finish.  Rather than being a straight continuation of the story where it left off, Dragonfly jumps to the future – thus establishing that Claire both survives the rising and returns to the future, while leaving the how, why, and (most importantly) what happens to Jamie left hanging.  I think a big part of the reason why Dragonfly isn’t as strong as Outlander is because of this immediate jump to the ‘future’; it’s a bit disjaring (which is okay, given the nature of the series), but more significantly it kind of interrupts the story.  Outlander is one concise story, about a woman out of time, with the reader experiencing things as she’s experiencing them (despite the novel being written in the past tense).  By starting Dragonfly twenty (and 203) years after the events of Outlander Gabaldon is establishing Claire as this older, wiser woman now telling a story to her daughter – and, frankly, some of the story that she tells the readers is stuff that I would hope she isn’t also telling Brianna.  The story that Claire tells Brianna and Roger is one that picks up very roughly where Outlander ends and brings our English woman and Scotsman into France on the eve of the 1745 Rising. Knowing what they know about the future, Claire and Jamie are faced with a problem: can they use what they know to change the future and if so, should they be trying to prevent the Rising or work to make it successful?

I really like the way this book ends, even if I wasn’t a big fan of the way in which it was started.  Honestly, I love the idea of a narrator telling us a story from a much older perspective, as they look back on their life.  It’s actually a big part of why I enjoy Bernard Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles and The Saxon Stories.  As I said, the problem that I had with the way Dragonfly did this was that it interrupted the overall narration of the story.  I think I would have rather seen the jump forward twenty years to a Claire telling the story to Brianna and Roger at the end; have her in the present with her daughter be the big reveal at the end instead of the shock at the start.  But that’s all coulda, woulda, shoulda, and while I’m not a big fan of how Gabaldon did this overall I do have to admit it works.

That being said, what I don’t think worked as well was the period of the novel where our heroes are in France.  While I loved the characters that are introduced here – especially Master Raymond – and would love to see some of them remerge in later books, the overall story here in itself was a bit on the dull side.  The charm of Outlander was its setting, but the bulk of Dragonfly is really removed from this setting.  Claire was a fish out of water to begin with, but while in France it’s more like she’s… I donno… a whale out of water.  She’s able to survive, but not for long – likewise with my attention span.

One of the things that I do love, however, is the introduction of Roger as a narrator, even if it is in the third person. I really like the way Roger sees things. Like myself he’s a historian who’s intrigued by a good tale, and it’s made very clear very quickly that the only way Claire is able to move forward and Brianna is able to accept the truth is through Roger. The part of me that enjoys a good mind fuck in literature almost thinks that it’d be fun if Claire was revealed to have been a complete nutjob who dreamed her time in the eighteenth century, but I realize that’s not going to happen – there’s too much pseudo-science to these books to make them just a mind fuck.

Death of Kings

Author: Bernard Cornwell

Genre: Historical Fiction

Rating: B

Alfred the Great is dying, and the kingdom that he has spent his life building is poised to be torn apart by his many rivals.  Enter Uhtred of Bebbanburg, Alfred's semi-tamed pagan warrior, who is in love with Alfred's daughter and has grown to share Alfred's dream of a united England.

I love the journey that Uhtred has taken in this series, and Death of Kings shows him finally beginning to be recognized for all he has done.  To me that's always been the most infuriating thing about this series: every time Uhtred accomplishes something he's very completely pushed back down into his place.  I don't think a post-Alfred Wessex will be all that much more forgiving of Uhtred's pagan ways than the Alfredian Wessex, but at the same time I know the history and I know the tide's about to really turn for the Anglo-Saxons in the war against the Danes.  I know it's only a matter of time before Uhtred really gets the recognition he deserves from the king that he so resentfully acknowledges and yet loyally defends, and this novel shows the start of that recognition.  My favourite part of it all is the way in which Uhtred uses Lady Æthelflæd.   Their love has been one that's long in the development, and I love the nature that it's taken - especially as Uhtred doesn't change the way that he acts when she's not around.

The one thing that actually really annoyed me about this novel was the anachronastic language.  Previous books have always referred to the people using more time appropriate language; it wasn't the English, Welsh, and Scots fighting against the Danes so much as the Anglo-Saxons, Britons, and Picts, with references to the Gauls and the Celts.  This book speaks of Scotland and Wales, to my great disliking.  I really hope that it's just in my edition that this has happened, although I know better than to think that it is.  Having read a lot of Cornwell's works before, in particular the similarly timed and themed Warlord Chronicles I was especially disappointed by this switch just because it didn't seem like him.  It was a downside to an otherwise stellar book.

Outlander

Author: Diana Gabaldon
Genre: Historical, Romance, Sci-Fi
Rating: A

The first in Diana Gabaldon’s series of the same name, Outlander tells the story of accidental time traveller Claire Randall and her journey through the eighteenth century Scottish Highlands on the eve of the 1745 Jacobite Rising.  I’ve read this book a number of times now, along with its successors, and I think this is easily the best in the series – although the sequels aren’t shabby either.

At the start of the novel former army nurse Claire Randall and her husband, Frank, are in Inverness, Scotland on a vacation to rekindle their marriage – no, not rekindle.  More renew; while there’s no doubt of the love between the two, they’ve been separated for a long time now as the result of the War, it being 1945 at the start of the book.  Then life drastically changes for Claire; during an excursion around the standing stones at Craigh na Dun Claire finds herself transported back 203 years in time, to 1742.  Claire quickly becomes captured by Clan MacKenzie and taken to Castle Leoch, and somewhat enchanted by the mysterious Jamie McTavish.  Overhanging all of this is Claire’s desire to return to her own time, and her husband, as well as the looming threat of war – which Claire, graced with the knowledge of the future, knows will be disastrous for Scotland.

I think this might be one of the few novels written in first person that I’ve ever really loved.  There’s something about Claire that makes it clear that even though she’s telling the story – and as such it’s biased by her perception of things – it’s clear that she’s still a flawed person.  A good number of the things that befall her and Jamie are caused by Claire’s own shortcomings and her failure to really fit into the world around her.  I love that Gabaldon took a woman who isn’t entirely modern and sent her back; I think it does a lot to help her fit into the eighteenth century while also making her accessibly to a contemporary reader.  She doesn’t spend her time fussing over things like central heating or running water – although she does lament the standard of personal hygiene common at the time – but she does have ideals that don’t exactly coincide with the way that the typical eighteenth century woman was expected to behave.  This becomes more prominent by Drums of Autumn, by which point it’s really clear that Claire’s place isn’t necessarily eighteenth or twentieth century, it’s at Jamie’s side.

As I believe I’ve said of other works of Gabaldon’s, Outlander is very anecdotal.  However, where it doesn’t seem to work as well in some of her short stories, it works really well in Outlander.  The overall issue of the plot is clear very early on – the woman from the twentieth century transported back to the eighteenth, on the eve of what is to be (for Scotland) a devastating war – and the incidents that happen following it do a lot to firmly establish the characters, the setting, and the time.  There is a bit of repetition to the story, particularly when it comes to Black Jack Randall, but it’s easy to forgive, especially at this early point in the series.  There’s also so much detail that it’s easy to get lost a bit at times, but for the most part it’s just enough to really emmurse yourself in the story.

My favourite part, though, is the dialects and accents. Gabaldon really has a nack for writing accents and dialects in a manner that’s easy to read. Her characters talk like people really talk, using words that firmly establish who they are and where they’re from. This is seen even more later on in the series, as more ethnicities are introduced, but for now it’s really easy to see that Claire Randall talks like an Englishwoman – not an American – and a good chunk of the rest of the characters talk like Scots.

Lord John and the Plague of Zombies

Author:Diana Gabaldon

Genre: Historical,Mystery, Novella

Rating: A-

 “Lord John and the Plague of Zombies” takes Lord John Grey to Jamaica, where he must deal with slaves, rebellions, corrupt Englishmen, snakes, and zombies, although not in that order.  At the start of the novel Grey has just arrived at Jamaica, summoned by the Governor to suppress a slave rebellion.  The rebellion is not entirely what it seems, with those rebelling against the English rule being not slaves but rather the descendants of the descendants of runaway slaves, no one knowing just who technically owns them.  What’s more is that the Governor’s home is overrun by snakes and a slave warns Grey to stay away from the Governor or else run the risk of being assaulted by a flesh eating zombie.  As per usual, it all goes to hell from there.

This story would have fit in well within the Lord John and the Hand of Devils anthology, had it been published later.  The way in which Gabaldon brings up the idea of the supernatural and then dismisses it is handled very nicely, although she does less dismissing than done in the previous novellas.  There are still a few questions that one could ask, although none that are of any great significance.  I really liked the way in which she continued to bring in old foes for Grey to encounter – even going so far as to re-introduce a foe from the early Outlander books.  I really like the way that each of these stories is for the most part a standalone story, with the plot being largely resolved by the story’s conclusion, but at the same time are all interconnected.  “Plague of Zombies” is like this, with elements of the story coming from The Scottish Prisoner and “The Custom of the Army.”  The one thing that I did dislike a bit was that there wasn’t really indication as to just when this story takes place; I know that it is at some point after the events of The Scottish Prisoner and before some of the events of the Outlander novel Voyager, but not exactly when. As such, it’s a bit discombobulating, trying to figure out just exactly what the time frame is.  Hopefully when Gabaldon publishes “Plague of Zombies” in her own anthology she remedies this by including a date at the start of the work. Otherwise, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The Scottish Prisoner

Author: Diana Gabaldon

Genre: Historical, Mystery, Fantasy

Rating: A-

In the course of The Scottish Prisoner Lord John Gey and Jamie Frasier team up in order to arrest a dishonourable Englishman and maybe stop a Jacobean plot on the way.  The plot is as such: after returning to London Grey receives a package of letters that detail the illegal doings of Major Gerald Siverly, who Grey and his brother, the Duke of Pardloe, decide needs to be brought to London for justice – a task which requires journeying to Ireland.  Within the package is a poem written in Irish Gaelic, so Pardloe summons Frasier in order to translate it as best as possible.  While all this is going on, Frasier has also been approached by Irishman Tobias Quinn, who he knew before the Rising of 45.  Quinn talks of another Rising, this one in Ireland, and it doesn’t take a genius to put one and two together to see where this plot is going.

In the course of The Scottish Prisoner Lord John Gey and Jamie Frasier team up in order to arrest a dishonourable Englishman and maybe stop a Jacobean plot on the way.  The plot is as such: after returning to London Grey receives a package of letters that detail the illegal doings of Major Siverly, who Grey and his brother, the Duke of Pardloe, decide needs to be brought to London for justice – a task which requires journeying to Ireland.  Within the package is a poem written in Irish Gaelic, so Pardloe summons Frasier in order to translate it as best as possible.  While all this is going on, Frasier has also been approached by Irishman Tobias Quinn, who he knew before the Rising of 45.  Quinn talks of another Rising, this one in Ireland, and it doesn’t take a genius to put one and two together to see where this plot is going.

I think this novel really tied up some of the loose ends of the previous Lord John books, particularly in regards to the friendship between the two men.  Having read the Outlander books I know that they become good friends again, and The Scottish Prisoner shows just how they do so.  Things might not be exactly perfect between the two of them at novel’s end, but I at least have an idea of how they’re going to end up at the point of friendship that they’re at by Drums of Autumn.  I am getting a bit bored of the Jacobean threat plot line in the Grey books, it seems to pop up every other book or so.  At the same time, though I only have one more story (to date) in the Lord John series to read, and I suspect that Gabaldon will have to stretch a bit to write a story connecting Jacobeans and zombies.  While this wasn’t my favourite story in the series, I did like it, overall.  For the most part it was able to really stand on its own, although as usual there are many references to events both in earlier Lord John novels and in Voyager, so I wouldn’t recommend skipping over them before reading this one – even if Gabaldon’s note at the start of the novel says otherwise.

The Custom of the Army

Author: Diana Gabaldon

Genre: Historical, Mystery, Novella

Rating: C+

I’m not entirely sure the purpose of “The Custom of the Army.”  The pretense of the plot is as such: While attending an electric eel party (which involves connecting as many people as possible then having one brave soul touch an electric eel) Lord John Grey enters into a scuffle over a lady’s honour, which results in a duel.  The next day it is revealed that the man with which Grey duelled is dead, his father demanding that Grey be tried for murder – and the lady’s father demanding that Grey enter into a marriage for the sake of his daughter’s honour.  Rather conveniently at the same time a letter appears requesting that Grey serve as a witness to the court martial of one Captain Charles Carruthers, in Canada.  Deciding that the wilderness of Canada is a much safer place than London society, Grey very quickly decides to flee the country.  This journey gives Grey the opportunity to reunite with his new cousin-in-law, last seen in Lord John and the Private Matter, and partake in the British Conquest of New France.

When I say the pretense of the plot, however, I really do mean the pretense.  The reason for which Grey goes to Canada in the first place are rather flimsy and quickly forgotten.  As is common with the Lord John series, matters are for the most part nicely wrapped up by the end of the story, but I found that I wasn’t really happy with the resolution.  It just seemed a bit too forced, too rushed.  Almost as though Gabaldon had intended to write a much longer story, but realized that for this anthology she could not do so.  As such, rather than really developing the plot she just kind of winged it, wrapping everything up like an afterthought, or like a present that you buy at a gas station on the way to Christmas dinner.  The characters in the story are, as always, excellently written, but the story is lacking.  Where “Custom” does succeed, however, is as an in between.  It provides a good connector between its predecessor, "Lord John and the Haunted Soldier" and its successor, The Scottish Prisoner.