osprey_archer: (books)
I just finished Josephine Tey’s Miss Pym Disposes, and it maaaaay have displaced Daughter of Time as my favorite Tey book, although it’s hard to displace that impassioned defense of Richard III. (And in fact even in Miss Pym Disposes Tey can’t resist a dig at Shakespeare’s Richard III: “A criminal libel on a fine man, a blatant piece of political propaganda, and an extremely silly play,” one of the secondary characters fulminates.)

The book takes place in a women’s physical training college. I like books set in girls’ schools of all kinds - actually just books set in female spaces in general, although it’s somewhat rarer to find something that is set in say a nunnery - and Miss Pym Disposes does a charming job evoking it through Miss Pym’s outsider eyes.

Miss Pym comes to the school to give a talk on psychology, having become famous by writing a book on the topic, although the book never defines her precise psychological theories - aside from a firm belief in face-reading, which Miss Pym shares with Tey’s other great detective, Inspector Grant. I find it less disturbing in Miss Pym than Inspector Grant, because she’s not a police officer and therefore not empowered to hound anyone into prison on the strength that they have the eyebrows of a murderer.

In any case, Miss Pym meant to leave the day after her lecture, but she finds the energy and atmosphere of the school so charming, and the students so welcoming, that she ends up staying through the last couple of weeks of finals… Only of course to become embroiled in a murder.

I do feel that Tey lost her nerve a bit at the end, although oddly enough this doesn’t bother me; I read lots of mysteries and love mysteries and am yet weirdly indifferent to whodunnit. I realized this fact recently and am pondering what it means.

However, although it certainly doesn’t spoil the book, it is a bit painful because the book is almost excellent and morally complex and meaty for a bit there, and then Tey steps back from that and it’s a bit painful to see her walking back the excellence of her own work like that.

Spoilers )
osprey_archer: (history)
Josephine Tey's Daughter of Time is a history treatise thinly disguised as a detective novel, wherein it is argued that a) Richard III did not in fact kill his nephews (the Princes in the Tower), b) was more generally not such a bad guy, and c) was in fact a far better fellow than that blackguard Henry Tudor, (later Henry VII), the Tudors being a rather rotten crowd altogether - and not just because they stained poor Richard's memory with one of the most effective smear campaigns in history. They got Shakespeare on board! Who can argue with Shakespeare?

I won't be able to read his plays the same way ever again.

Tey piles up quite a bit of evidence, but these seem to me to be the most important pieces:

1. There's no contemporary accusation of murder. No one seems to have noticed that the princes were missing until after Henry VII took over the Tower, where they were kept.

2. Moreover, Richard had nothing to gain from killing the princes. Not only were they disqualified for illegitimacy (it seems their father was a secret bigamist) - but there were half a dozen other possible heirs to the throne that Richard would have had to kill, too, if he meant to safeguard his claim.

3. Henry, on the other hand, had a lot to gain from killing the princes, just as he did from killing all the other Yorkist heirs - which, in the years after his coronation, he did, because he was a paranoid and ruthless man.

4. Moreover, even if (in a fit of uncharacteristic bloodthirstiness) Richard did have his nephews murdered, it would have done him no favors to keep their deaths secret. He would have done better to shout from the rooftops that it had been fever and plunge the whole family into deepest mourning - such a course being much less suspicious than being unable to produce the princes when they got a bit older and someone thought to ask about them.

5. But Henry had to kill them in secret. No one would believe that they neatly died of a coincidental fever right after they took the throne; no, his only hope was to quietly disappear them. But someone would still ask about them eventually - what would he say in answer to that?

6. And thus, he blamed it on Richard, who was too dead to defend himself - along with the lot of his followers, many of whom Henry executed by enacting, after the fact, a law that made it illegal to fight on Richard's side at Bosworth. He made it treason to have fought for the rightful king! Blackguard, like I said.

Tey tells the tale much better, of course, but I finished the book so burning with zeal on poor slandered Richard's behalf that I just had to proselytize.
osprey_archer: (books)
Richard III! What a villain! Shakespeare’s play may be a pack of propagandistic lies, but what brilliant lies they are. What style Richard has, what wit, what a complete and utter lack of conscience; you love every minute he’s on stage (or on the page) but you’re still cheering when he dies. Now that’s good writing.

My very favorite scene is the one where he woos Lady Anne. Of course it’s ridiculous that she would say yes to him – she’s standing next to the corpse of her father-in-law, being wooed by the man who killed him AND her original husband - but at the same time…how could she say no?

(Of course later on he uses the exact same trick on Queen Elizabeth [the widow of Edward IV] and, as she is a female character in Shakespeare and thus completely useless, she falls for it too; that's somewhat less enthralling. The scene where everyone he's killed comes back to haunt him is pretty awesome, though.)

In the interest of fairness I visited York’s Richard III museum, which is almost as biased in Richard’s favor as Shakespeare was against him. (He was a scion of the house of York.) It did prove a few parts of Shakespeare’s play decisively wrong – Richard almost certainly was not a hunchback, for instance.

However, the fate of the princes in the tower remains a mystery. It’s not even entirely clear when they died, although it appears to be sometime after Richard left London. So…did he leave then send someone to do his dirty work for him, so he could claim clean hands? Did Buckingham, who was in London, do them in? (Could that be why Richard executed him without even granting an interview?) Or did they survive until Henry VII became king, and he killed them?

Josephine Tey wrote a book, which I’m told is quite good, called The Daughter of Time which explores those very questions. I may read that next: a nice light book to finish the term.

Profile

osprey_archer: (Default)
osprey_archer

July 2025

S M T W T F S
   12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 1st, 2025 09:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios