Rating: 
Summary: much beloved by readers
Review: Josephine Tey's detective novel, "Daughter of Time", was first published in 1950s. Since then, this book has attained a kind of cult status among readers of British mysteries, especially those with an interest in history. I heard the book favorably mentioned for years, finally found time to read it, and realized the hype is not overdone.
The narrative tone is a little---but noticeably--different in tone from current books of the genre; it is perhaps slightly more formal, more cerebral. The reader is soon aware of the author's carefully chosen words and wit, and senses that here is a rewarding leisure-time read.
I won't reveal the plot of the book or spoil any of the mystery except to say that Richard III is presented here in a new, entirely plausible view. Facts, inductive intuition, and a good understanding of human character and motives,unite to aid the detective, who is stuck in bed recovering from an injury, to reach his conclusions.
A great read to savor and enjoy---highly recommended!
Rating: 
Summary: Cheated of feature by dissembling history?
Review: "Truth is the daughter of time," according to the saying from which Josephine Tey took the title of her book, and time affords Tey's detective Alan Grant plenty of perspective on the mystery he sets out to solve. Laid up with a broken leg, Grant begins investigating the alleged crimes of Richard III after scrutinizing a portrait of the fifteenth century king. According to many historians, (e.g. Alison Weirs' recent, "The Princes in the Tower"), as well as Shakespeare, St. Thomas More, and common opinion, Richard was a monster who murdered his nephews to secure the throne of England for himself. It is giving nothing away to say that Grant comes to disbelieve these authorities. Who he concludes was the real murderer I won't say, but it is interesting to think about his conclusion in the light of the economic consequence of the Reformation.Teys skillfully summarizes the historical facts and the case for Richard's innocence and presents them in an entertaining way, but considered strictly as a murder mystery her story comes off somewhat strained and contrived. Also she is bit hard on St. Thomas More ("the sainted More") on whose history of Richard much subsequent history depends, even though she determines that More was deceived by the testimony of the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Morton. If your interest is piqued by Tey's account, do a search for "Richard III Society". They have a website with lots of further information on the question.
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for anyone who likes history...
Review: ...Or for anyone who thinks that they don't. What happens when a bored detective meets a postcard of an evil man? What happens when he decides that the man doesn't look so evil? A fascinating search into revisionist history, that's what! Alan Grant, detective extraordinaire, is laid up in the hospital when he comes across a picture of Richard III. You know, the ugly, hunchbacked guy who murdered his nephews, usurped their throne, and then yelled "My kingdom for a horse!" before dying his much-deserved death at the hands of Henry VII. The only problem is that Alan, who is never wrong about a face, thinks that Richard looks like a pretty decent guy. With the help of a few intrepid assistants who have access to the outside world, he decides to unravel the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. He must first work through 500 years of propaganda, lies, and questionable historical research. Is this book the end-all of the pro-Richard v. anti-Richard debate? No. It's not a traditional history, and should not be taken as such. It is a very fun detective story that opens up a fascinating window of how and why historians work, and will inspire anyone who reads it to think twice before taking any history at face value. Although anyone who loves history will adore this book, I think that it would also be a great book for someone who DOESN'T like history, such as a high school student who is bored to tears trying to memorize lists of names and dates. This book is a fun and quick read that shows how history is not quite as dry or as simple as our textbooks always taught us.
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for anyone who likes history...
Review: ...Or for anyone who thinks that they don't. What happens when a bored detective meets a postcard of an evil man? What happens when he decides that the man doesn't look so evil? A fascinating search into revisionist history, that's what! Alan Grant, detective extraordinaire, is laid up in the hospital when he comes across a picture of Richard III. You know, the ugly, hunchbacked guy who murdered his nephews, usurped their throne, and then yelled "My kingdom for a horse!" before dying his much-deserved death at the hands of Henry VII. The only problem is that Alan, who is never wrong about a face, thinks that Richard looks like a pretty decent guy. With the help of a few intrepid assistants who have access to the outside world, he decides to unravel the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. He must first work through 500 years of propaganda, lies, and questionable historical research. Is this book the end-all of the pro-Richard v. anti-Richard debate? No. It's not a traditional history, and should not be taken as such. It is a very fun detective story that opens up a fascinating window of how and why historians work, and will inspire anyone who reads it to think twice before taking any history at face value. Although anyone who loves history will adore this book, I think that it would also be a great book for someone who DOESN'T like history, such as a high school student who is bored to tears trying to memorize lists of names and dates. This book is a fun and quick read that shows how history is not quite as dry or as simple as our textbooks always taught us.
Rating: 
Summary: The Correct Portrait
Review: A book that is great fun. Unfortunately the portraic on the cover is not tho one the book is about. The correct one can be qbtained by going to the National Portrait Gallery London on line and calling up that of Richard III. It can be printed out and proves of value in enjoying the book.
Rating:
Summary: Miss Tey Takes on History
Review: From his hospital bed, Scotland Yard detective Alan Grant is intrigued by a portrait of Richard III, the humpback, the child murderer. Grant is impatient with himself for thinking that the notorious king looks more like a judge than a criminal.
So from his bed, and with a little help from American student Brent Carradine, Grant takes on history, and researches the case with a detective's eye.
Richard is innocent, he decides. Bit by bit, like drops of cream in coffee, Tey introduces the facts of the case-- not what people said, or reported long after the fact, but what they did.
This is by far one of the best, if not the best, mysteries from that great fount of paperback mysteries, England. This book is the definition of "page-turner." People who know nothing of Richard III, and have never cared really, whether the historical rcerd is correct, will not only be fascinated by this story, but will, after putting it down, be ready to carry the banner of Richard's innocence.
One warning: do not begin this book late in the day. You will probably want to read it cover-to-cover, so if you do not start reading early enough, you will end up losing a night's sleep.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Historical Mystery
Review: I first read this book many years ago, and it remains one of my favorite books ever. I just re-read it, and, though it was written in the 1950s, it does not feel dated. Only the length of Grant's recuperation (physical therapists will cringe at the length of time he is made to lie in bed) and the absence of computer resources make it seem a bit old.
In this book, Josephine Tey, a mystery novelist, acquires credibility in historical circles. She, using the conceit of her Grant character's being laid up and needing an occupation to keep him from boredom, presents the revisionist theory of the fate of the "Princes in the Tower" in an extremely readable, interesting way. It is history presented as fiction. The revisionists believe that Richard III has gotten a bad rap from the Tudors and their tame historians and that he was framed for the death of the princes. Certainly, we end Tey's book being totally in accord with her, and Grant's, opinions.
If you want some other reading to follow up after this book, I strongly recommend that you read "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields and that you read Appendices I and II of Paul Murray Kendall's "Richard III". Those appendices deal with the accuracy (or, rather, inaccuracy) of historical sources and with the death of the princes in the tower.
I have just sent this book, with Field's book, to my law student daughter. I recommended it to her, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys mysteries and history.
Rating:
Summary: Time Well Spent
Review: I read this story a few years ago and would reccommend it to any history class as an example of history made interesting.
The story is pretty simple. I do not know how she came upon it, but, all in all, she does a fantastic job setting up the situation and then bringing in the mystery, seemingly from left field.
Her examination of the evidence leaves no doubt about the guilt and innocence of the those involved. As it turns out (I forget if it is mentioned in this book or elsewhere) a lot of history has been written correcting the popular fable, but the popular fable keeps on keeping on.
It is quaint that Ms. Tey mentions Shakespeare's "Richard III" in another book, "Miss Pym Disposes", “criminal libel on a fine man, a blatant piece of political propaganda, and an extremely silly play”.
Ms. Tey's writing style is very English. She reads very easily and correctly. I have been reading some of Ruyard Kipling's work recently and it reads the same. These stories by British authors are fun and easy to read.
Rating:
Summary: More history than mystery - but extremely well done
Review: It's a little deceiving to consider this book a mystery novel in the traditional sense; it's much more of an historical study. The topic itself is fascinating: was Richard III the murdering, amoral monster that Shakespeare made him out to be, or was he merely misunderstood? Tey makes a cogent and compelling argument that Richard did not, in fact, murder his young nephews in the Tower of London, nor possess the negative qualities so often ascribed to him. Her historical analysis is cleverly contained in a contemporary setting; Inspector Alan Grant of Scotland Yard is laid up in hospital and sets his mind to figuring out the conundrum of Richard III while he recuperates. Grant enlists the help of a young American researcher; dialogues between the two and Grant's internal analysis form the "action" or "plot" of the story. If you are in the mood for a classic whodunit, a body in library-type mystery, this is not your cup of tea -- no one in Grant's time is murdered and his "solving" of the crime is only speculation. If you like history and have an open mind about Richard III, this is a well-written, well-researched and well-argued book. One thing I had trouble with was the author's assumption that the reader is familiar with much more of English history than I was, so at times, I was a bit overwhelmed by the names and references I didn't always get. If, after finishing "Daughter of Time," you're interested in learning more about Richard III, try "Royal Blood," by Bertram Fields as a good and thorough overview, with arguments both pro- and anti-Richard set forth.
Rating:
Summary: Scotland Yard is on the Case!
Review: Mysteries are usually not my proverbial cup of tea, however the premise of this story is, the Scotland Yard detective layed-up in hospital, devealing into a historical mystery, to keep bordam at bay. After looking at some photographs and portraits, he is drawn by a portrait of Richard III, and recalls the story of the murder of the Princes in the Tower, which has been historically laid at his feet.
While this book was written I think in the 1950s and is not up to our modern CSI style of whodunnit, it does show a more modern way of thinking about motives, and questioning supposedly sound historical commentary.
|
