Book Review -- Final in this series

The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare by Brenda James & William D. Rubenstein

I won’t pretend to be a Shakespeare expert. I’ve only seen a few of the plays and these would be in movie form, and I remember having to read some in English class while in High School. It is not easy for me to read or comprehend sometimes but since he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the history of everything, I have to take it seriously. Although, I love his sonnets, especially #29 as it is so beautiful and sad, and who hasn’t felt this way at one time or another:

When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes,
   I all alone beweep my outcast state,
And trouble deaf Heaven with my bootless cries,
   And look upon myself, and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
   Featur'd like him, like him with friends possess'd,
Desiring this man's art, and that man's scope,
   With what I most enjoy contented least:
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
   Haply I think on thee,--and then my state
(Like to the lark at break of day arising
   From sullen earth) sings hymns at heaven's gate;
For thy sweet love remember'd such wealth brings
   That then I scorn to change my state with kings'.

I have a few books about the man from Avon, watched and enjoyed some movies that purport to portray him, and have seen some documentaries (especially good is Michael Woods In Search of Shakespeare [although all of Michael Woods documentaries are fabulous]) about his life because this period of English history is so fascinating to me and he is an intricate part of it. But as most people, I always assumed the accepted canon, that William Shakespeare from Stratford-Upon-Avon, the actor who made good, was the writer of these timeless tales. I had no reason to think otherwise. Funnily, it took a computer game to make me pursue an interest in those who don’t accept the party line and really take a look at their arguments. I enjoy playing hidden object games and I was playing one called Midnight Mysteries: Devil on the Mississippi. The whole plot of it is to help the ghost of Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) defeat a demon and uncover the truth about Shakespeare. So I started to do a little research and it seems that many of the elements and inconsistencies that the game featured were in actual fact correct. Apparently, there has been a growing movement of the authorship question since the middle of the 19^th century (actually the first question about his authorship was published in 1791) and has gained an incredibly diverse and impressive following including such luminaries as Charlie Chaplin, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sigmund Freud, Sir John Gielgud, Henry James, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, and Walt Whitman. These are some of the brightest minds of this or any time and if they take this subject seriously, who am I to argue? Coincidentally, a big budget movie on just this subject came out recently called Anonymous, its plot follows one of the most prominent alternate authors and why he was not allowed to claim the works that flowed from his pen.

Book Review # 3

The Last Jew of Treblinka: A Memoir by Chil Rajchman

This is a tiny book but important. As the years go by, more and more of those living voices that can attest to the holocaust die out. The only legacy they will leave will be the imprint left on the pages of books or on film. The horrors of the German camps of WWII are not as fresh in our memory as they might be. And though the records that are left to us can help, it is easy to feel that this will pass into the same dusty realm that is occupied by stories from WWI and the Civil War. This is not ancient history by any means, but the memory of man is so short and ever so ready to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

This is a memoir, a first person account, written by the author about his time in a death camp. If you are like me, you might have thought that all the camps in Germany were the same. They were not. There were two distinct types of camps: work camps which are better known as concentration camps that included Auschwitz and death camps which the subject of this book is one, Treblinka.   The distinction is fine but there. Work camps killed you because of the harsh conditions, lack of everything that can prolong life like food, clothing, medical care, and adequate shelter. Plus, the inmates were often subjected to extremely brutal treatment by the guards and could be murdered with impunity for sport. In these camps, death was an afterthought once they got what they wanted out of you and the camps themselves started life as regular detention facilities that were converted to the other purpose. In the death camps, death was the main event. They sent people there to die, they were built to kill you, and that was their only intention.  Let me say this again, the death camps were purpose built with the sole intention of killing as many men, women, and children as possible in the most efficient method possible, it was killing on an industrial scale. Really think about the horror of that and why it is so imperative that it never be forgotten.

Treblinka was complete in June of 1942 and by the time of its Liberation nearly 800,000 people had passed through its gates and taken the “road to heaven” never to be seen or heard from again. Chil managed to survive by being chosen at the time of his arrival to be a Sonderkommando, while he watched his entire family marched off to their doom. These were Jews whose services were needed by the Nazis to help them do the work of killing. Most didn’t last long; they died from physical abuse, starvation, or suicide. Their jobs consisted of sorting through the belongings of the dead, pulling teeth, shaving hair, pulling the corpses out of the gas chamber, only later being forced to disinter the rotting bodies so they could be burnt in a frantic and doomed effort to hide what they were doing as the war drew to a close and the Nazis faced the reality that defeat was inevitable.

Book Review # 2

Mary Tudor: Princess, Bastard, Queen by Anna Whitelock

I am sensing a theme with the titles of my reading; English royalty and three word summaries of what the book is about.

This is the author’s first book and an impressive introduction it is to the world of historical biographies. I went into it with a profound dislike of Elizabeth’s older sister and this account of her life did little to ameliorate that. Personally, I find her to be an unredeemed fanatic whose trials in life did not teach her anything but only hardened her convictions and gained her the title “Bloody Mary” which I feel she richly deserved. The author tried to convince the reader that she is undeserved of the hatred surrounding her name and that her history and reputation was rewritten by the victor, her little sister. I find it extremely interesting how 2 lives that were so parallel turned out 2 such disparate personalities.

·        Both Mary and Elizabeth’s mothers were cast out. One eventually dies from neglect; one leaves the block a full head shorter. But, Elizabeth’s mother was killed when she was three while Mary was lovingly raised by her mother until her teens.

·        Both were their father’s legitimate heirs and only acknowledged children who could inherit the throne upon his death (Prior to them, Henry had one bastard son who died at 17 of consumption. I find it curious how weak the males are in the Tudor line of which Henry himself was the glaring exception. Henry’s elder brother Arthur died at 15, as did Edward, his only legitimate son of Jane Seymour). Both were loved and feted by their glorious father until their mother’s fell from favor, stripped of their titles, and bastardized.  

·        Both were persecuted for their religion at different points almost unto death. Mary for her Catholicism during her Brother Edward’s strictly Protestant reign when any plot, insurrection, or supposed treachery was laid at her door, regardless that there was never any proof. Elizabeth for her Protestantism during Mary’s fanatical Catholic reign when any plot, insurrection or supposed treachery was laid at her door, regardless that there was never any proof. But, Elizabeth was the only one to spend time in the tower.

·        Both were extremely bright, educated, and intelligent women thrust into the “unnatural” role of ruling over men at the apex of power at a time when being a regent really meant something and was not just a figurehead.

The differences lie chiefly in how each woman dealt with the tragedy and adversity in their life, and in comparison, Mary does not come off good. Certainly Mary made it possible for Elizabeth to inherit the throne, and in many ways was a trail blazer but she had so many faults. When Edward died, there was a crisis. The Seymour’s, his mother’s brothers, were greedy and hungry for the power they received from ruling in Edward’s name. When he died they were not willing to give that up and tried to disinherit Mary and put a Protestant, Jane, on the throne. The English rose up to rally behind Mary and the nine-days Queen was stripped of her crown and Mary’s coronation was greeted with jubilation and high hopes. By the time her 5 year reign was over, she was as hated as she had been loved at the beginning.  

Book Review

I'm Back Babydolls!

I know I have not been posting as much lately. I find that I have been consumed by the time sucking vortex that is known as World of Warcraft.  I've known of these types of games for many years, there was a time when someone I knew was playing a MMORPG game called Everquest and wanted me to play. I wisely declined, I thought then that I wasn't nerdy enough to play these, guess I was wrong. Plus, I could not spare time for that as I had Sims to care for, which was cool and not geeky. Later on, I played and enjoyed Dark Age of Camelot. When I stopped playing that, I really didn't think much about it when suddenly I thought it would be fun to try one of these games again. I love it and find that all of my spare time when not at work or doing school work is spent questing with one of my many characters. I can't believe how excited I get every time I level up or find a cool item. But I have managed to squeeze in some reading and I will review this week 4 books that I have completed.

We Two -- Victoria and Albert: Rulers, Partners, Rivals by Gillian Gill

I think besides the Tudor dynasty, I find the rule of Queen Victoria to be the most fascinating. Since each book and author has their own take on this groundbreaking monarch,  it often makes me feel like Elizabeth Bennet trying to make out the character of Mr. Darcy, “I do not get on at all. I hear such different accounts of you as to puzzle me exceedingly.” Even though there is a profusion of documentary evidence, letters, photographs, diaries, newspaper articles, and first person accounts, the available data can be construed in any number of ways.

Author Gillian Gill places Victoria and Albert as firmly a product of their time. Victoria believed that women were subjects to their men and Albert was a misogynist who thought very little of women as a whole, although this was not a rare quality in upper middle class men of this era. It is this juxtaposition where the problems in their relationship lie. Before her marriage Victoria was a very gay young woman, who loved to stay up late, dance, play cards, go to plays, and concerts, and tuck into a good dinner.  Having been under the thumb of her domineering mother and the odious Sir John Conroy until she turned 18, the taste of freedom was very sweet to her. There were times that she liked to think that she would never marry at all. But, society was very different from her formidable virgin predecessor and she eventually bowed to convention and pressure to consent to a husband. It did not hurt that upon careful grooming of Albert as the “perfect” partner for Victoria and his striking good looks, that she, to use modern vernacular developed the hots for him. The English have always been an insular and xenophobic people, and although at first they were ready to begrudgingly accept Albert, his haughty demeanor, humorlessness, and ego quickly turned the public and even his own class against him.

The real problem was that Victoria was Queen, but Albert thought that because he was a man and her husband, that he should rule in her stead. Victoria was an extremely smart and educated woman herself, and was easily capable of rule and it was sad to see how eventually she began to lose even this. The duty of state was oftentimes shared between them though, in there dual desks. He tried for years to get Parliament to crown him King and they never acceded to this demand. This book talks much about their domestic lives. How the many children Victoria was forced to bear eventually harmed not only her health but threatened her sanity. I honestly think that this poor woman suffered for years from untreated post-partum depression, repeated 9 times, exacerbated by an uncaring and cold husband who had no time for these “women’s” issues.  That Albert blamed Victoria, at least partially, for his not being King and for his unpopularity, because to his mind he was without fault. Albert’s court was as cold and humorless as he was, and eventually, he managed to separate his wife and growing family from everyone. They lived alone in a fish bowl. Much of the joy and humor was slowly drained out of Victoria over the years in her quest to please her husband, turning her into an unforgiving and dour woman.