A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury

Rating:
Summary: Hard Core Fan
Review: A little on the slow and dry side. A short novel that doesn't really allow one to get to know or like any of the characters. In short a rather unremarkable book.

Rating:
Summary: Also known as . . .
Review: As if the Edith Pargeter / Ellis Peters (her sometime pen name)confusion weren't enough, this book's hardcover version appeared under a slightly different title: The Bloody Field, by Edith Pargeter.

By any name, this is superior historical fiction: well-written, subtle, without the plodding literalness that plagues the genre. A very happy find.

Rating:
Summary: Good History, Great "Fiction"
Review: Having really knocked Dudley Pope's "The Black Ship" I feel compelled to review another book that shows how it is possible to make history thrilling without seriously departing from historical fact. Edith Pargetter wrote the "Brother Cadfael" series of medieval whodunnits under the pseudonym "Ellis Peters," and in "A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury" turned her talent to the story of Harry Hotspur's unsuccessful rebellion against Henry IV "Bolingbroke." Instead of trying to play psycologist (as Pope did in Pigot's case), Pargetter beautifully lays out the characters of Henry IV, Henry V and Hotspur by their interactions. Prince Henry had been a hostage of Richard II, but their relationship was such that Richard was more a father to the prince than was Bolingbroke (contrast how Pargetter carries this off with Pope's stolid comparison of Pigot's father and uncle). When the prince is called home from Ireland by Richard's impending ouster (and probable murder), Hal is very ambivalent towards his father, and needs reassurance (from Hotspur) that Bolingbroke's claim that Richard suicided is credible. He is placed under the guardianship of Hotspur, who becomes another father figure to him, and when, in the end, knowing that his father did starve his beloved Richard to death, but also knowing that his father's survival on the throne meant he would one day be king, and having to choose between Bolingbroke and Hotspur,
he chooses to be king. The psychology Pargetter develops through the relationships in her "fiction" is far more valid than was Pope's stumbling attempt at explicit analysis. This bit of English history was high drama in and of itself, and Pargetter gives it the dramatic tensions its narration deserves. Pigot's mutiny was also high drama, which Pope utterly failed to bring to life. This is not Pargetter's only serious historical fiction, and I'm eager to get more of it. Oh by the way, for the historically uneducated: Richard II was a "bad" king -- might have been manic-depressive -- and there was a wide concensus that he had to be go rid of. Hotspur's father and uncle, Warwick and Northumberland, led the junta that brought Bolingbroke in to take over. Bolingbroke himself got "out of control" once he got to the throne, probably really did do Richard in, and, from the northern and marcher barons' point of view, had to be replaced in his turn. Hotspur (Sir Henry Percy) was married to a sister of Edmund de Mortimer whose claim to the throne, based on the strictest application of the rules of primogeniture, was a better claim to suceed Richard II than Bolingbroke's. It was the competing claims of the Lancastrian and Yorkist houses that fuelled the "Wars of the Roses" beginning, arguably, with Hotspur's rebellion.

Rating:
Summary: Good History, Great "Fiction"
Review: Having really knocked Dudley Pope's "The Black Ship" I feel compelled to review another book that shows how it is possible to make history thrilling without seriously departing from historical fact. Edith Pargetter wrote the "Brother Cadfael" series of medieval whodunnits under the pseudonym "Ellis Peters," and in "A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury" turned her talent to the story of Harry Hotspur's unsuccessful rebellion against Henry IV "Bolingbroke." Instead of trying to play psycologist (as Pope did in Pigot's case), Pargetter beautifully lays out the characters of Henry IV, Henry V and Hotspur by their interactions. Prince Henry had been a hostage of Richard II, but their relationship was such that Richard was more a father to the prince than was Bolingbroke (contrast how Pargetter carries this off with Pope's stolid comparison of Pigot's father and uncle). When the prince is called home from Ireland by Richard's impending ouster (and probable murder), Hal is very ambivalent towards his father, and needs reassurance (from Hotspur) that Bolingbroke's claim that Richard suicided is credible. He is placed under the guardianship of Hotspur, who becomes another father figure to him, and when, in the end, knowing that his father did starve his beloved Richard to death, but also knowing that his father's survival on the throne meant he would one day be king, and having to choose between Bolingbroke and Hotspur,
he chooses to be king. The psychology Pargetter develops through the relationships in her "fiction" is far more valid than was Pope's stumbling attempt at explicit analysis. This bit of English history was high drama in and of itself, and Pargetter gives it the dramatic tensions its narration deserves. Pigot's mutiny was also high drama, which Pope utterly failed to bring to life. This is not Pargetter's only serious historical fiction, and I'm eager to get more of it. Oh by the way, for the historically uneducated: Richard II was a "bad" king -- might have been manic-depressive -- and there was a wide concensus that he had to be go rid of. Hotspur's father and uncle, Warwick and Northumberland, led the junta that brought Bolingbroke in to take over. Bolingbroke himself got "out of control" once he got to the throne, probably really did do Richard in, and, from the northern and marcher barons' point of view, had to be replaced in his turn. Hotspur (Sir Henry Percy) was married to a sister of Edmund de Mortimer whose claim to the throne, based on the strictest application of the rules of primogeniture, was a better claim to suceed Richard II than Bolingbroke's. It was the competing claims of the Lancastrian and Yorkist houses that fuelled the "Wars of the Roses" beginning, arguably, with Hotspur's rebellion.

Rating:
Summary: Is is just me
Review: I read all the wonderful reviews of this book, and couldn't wait to start reading it. I was dissapointed. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy reading it, but it I found it kind of dry and didn't really develop an attachment to any of the charachters.

Rating:
Summary: Hard Core Fan
Review: I'll start with this disclaimer: I am a loyal fan of the Brother Cadfael novels, written by the author under the pen name Ellis Peters. This novel explores the complex relationship among 3 men (all named Henry, interestingly enough): Henry IV, his son Henry the Prince of Wales, and Henry Percy, known as "hotspur," against the background of the deposing of King Richard II. Readers expecting lots of medieval carnage, promised by the picture on the cover, may be disappointed. Rather, the novel examines the character and psychology of the subjects, and how their relationships lead to the events that culminate in the "bloody field" of the title. I found it to be fascinating and thoroughly engrossing. As in the Cadfael series, Pargeter brings another age to life for the reader. You may even learn a little bit of history along the way.

Rating:
Summary: A preview to the War of the Roses
Review: This is a must read for anyone interested in the War of the Roses or the events that led up to it. In some ways it is more accurate than Shakespeare's plays (Hotspur was not Hal's age but a few years older than Henry, and like most royal murders we can make educated guesses but we don't really know for certain how Richard died), and the missing pieces of the puzzle that Ms. Pargeter inserts are believable (Hotspur's presumed contact with Glendower during this period and Hal's relationships with three men he loved in very different ways - and his reaction to the fact that two of them would have to die, and the third sell his soul, for him to become king). Above all, this is a very moving story about the emotional cost of politics. The fact that much of it may be close to the truth makes it painful to read at times but even more poignant.