What Are You Reading? Part Deux

[Kurben]

Not really a big fan of the Edward line myself, Edward the first is universally hated in Scotland, this might give you an idea why, his unofficial nickname (which he ended up getting put on his official name) was 'The Hammer of the Scots.' He invaded Scotland numerous times and tried to declare himself King, but like any English army that has attempted to invade Scotland, they ultimately get ran out by the people. You should research Henry V if you are interested in the war with the French, he was the commander at Agincourt, there is actually a film on Netflix about him called 'The King,' but its not very good, although, the battle at the end (Agincourt) is great.

Of course they are not well liked in scotland. Both Edward I and III made numerous wars against them and i think that the hate you mention says quite a bit about their quality as commanders. Mercy was not a la mode in these days. Luckily for the Scots Edward II was no match for Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn. Since the scots and the french has a long history of being allied against the english the animosity is not really strange. Henry V had a very short reign (10-12 years?), he was the last flare for the hope of victory in the hundred years war. After Agincourt it was a long slow decline. I think both Henry IV, that usurped the throne from Richard II, and Henry VI are more interesting as kings even if they do not come close as commanders. The reign was longer and there was a lot of intrigue going on. (War of The Roses). The most interesting and also enigmatic character of this time is not english but french, Jeanne D'Arc (or Joan Of Arc as some anglisize the name). You really cant measure how much she meant for the french fighting spirit.

And yes, i actually like The Outsider better than the Hodges trilogy. But i like them too and neither is a homerun like IT or The Stand and a few more.

 

[Edward John]

Of course they are not well liked in scotland. Both Edward I and III made numerous wars against them and i think that the hate you mention says quite a bit about their quality as commanders. Mercy was not a la mode in these days. Luckily for the Scots Edward II was no match for Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn. Since the scots and the french has a long history of being allied against the english the animosity is not really strange. Henry V had a very short reign (10-12 years?), he was the last flare for the hope of victory in the hundred years war. After Agincourt it was a long slow decline. I think both Henry IV, that usurped the throne from Richard II, and Henry VI are more interesting as kings even if they do not come close as commanders. The reign was longer and there was a lot of intrigue going on. (War of The Roses). The most interesting and also enigmatic character of this time is not english but french, Jeanne D'Arc (or Joan Of Arc as some anglisize the name). You really cant measure how much she meant for the french fighting spirit.

And yes, i actually like The Outsider better than the Hodges trilogy. But i like them too and neither is a homerun like IT or The Stand and a few more.

Great info about Henry V, the movie (The King) was not even close to accurate, I don't really have any knowledge of this period of history, (not even Scottish History all that much) but even I knew it was false. They made it seem like Agincourt was the ultimate victory for the English, despite the fact it would go on for years to come. I have tried researching Joan of Arc but much of the history texts written about her are gender centred and are not historic in nature. I find King John to be very interesting, you probably know about him, but he was the king that was forced to sign the Magna Carta, in which the barons restricted the power of the king. And at this time, the Magna Carta was essentially a restriction of the power of God, for the king and god were the same. Interesting stuff.

I, surprisingly, have never bothered with the King 'greatest hits,' like the main novels, so The Stand, Pet Semetary, IT, but I do love every other book he has done. I only really bother with the books that interest me. I feel like some of King's books are vastly overrated by the media, especially when compared to some of his lesser known masterpieces.

 

[Kurben]

Great info about Henry V, the movie (The King) was not even close to accurate, I don't really have any knowledge of this period of history, (not even Scottish History all that much) but even I knew it was false. They made it seem like Agincourt was the ultimate victory for the English, despite the fact it would go on for years to come. I have tried researching Joan of Arc but much of the history texts written about her are gender centred and are not historic in nature. I find King John to be very interesting, you probably know about him, but he was the king that was forced to sign the Magna Carta, in which the barons restricted the power of the king. And at this time, the Magna Carta was essentially a restriction of the power of God, for the king and god were the same. Interesting stuff.

I, surprisingly, have never bothered with the King 'greatest hits,' like the main novels, so The Stand, Pet Semetary, IT, but I do love every other book he has done. I only really bother with the books that interest me. I feel like some of King's books are vastly overrated by the media, especially when compared to some of his lesser known masterpieces.

I've read about John. Magna Carta would be at the bottom of many problems future kings had with their people.....When it comes to Joan of Arc i have read several books where she plays a part but a good biography is this one. No history book is totally unbiased but at least this author makes an honest attempt. The danger of writing biographies is that you easily either fall in love with your subject or start to hate it. This is very clear in biographies of, for example Richard III. I've read two biographies of him, both bad. One believed every evil story ever told about him (you know, Shakespeare had it right approach), the other made him almost saintlike before he was killed by evil Henry VII. Not even attempting balance and valueing the sources. This author try to walk the line and does a good job of it.

 

[Edward John]

I've read about John. Magna Carta would be at the bottom of many problems future kings had with their people.....When it comes to Joan of Arc i have read several books where she plays a part but a good biography is this one. No history book is totally unbiased but at least this author makes an honest attempt.
View attachment 33092

I'll give it a go! I know what you mean about biased history books, basically every book written about the union of 1707 is biased. Thanks.

 

[Ceefor]

Apart from this thread, IT.

 

[fljoe0]

Just started A Head Full Of Ghosts by Paul Tremblay

This book got the thumps up from Stephen.

 

[kelliblue]

I'm reading The Torah and 2 books by Jewish authors whose names I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

[Kurben]

Rereading this masterpiece by the late Ursula K. LeGuin. SF as a genre owns so much to her. Just as an example Harry Potter is unthinkable without her Earthsea novels.

 

[GNTLGNT]

....outstanding collection!......I had already read some of the stories, but others are just knockin' the hat right off my imagination's noggin.....

 

[kingricefan]

Finally finished The Institute and am now about 3/5 of the way through Find Me by Andre Aciman. It's the sequel to Call Me By Your Name. I'm really enjoying this one. The writing is fantastic and the story line is good. But I think I'm going to be wiping away tears as I finish the last page- Aciman really has created some of the most human characters here (and also in CMBYN), they feel alive. I have two other of his books in my TBR pile and I will dive into those very soon to see if the magic is there.

 

[urrutiap]

two books im reading for the rest of this month and early December

Star Wars Aftermath Empire's End
Star Wars Bounty Hunter Wars Trilogy. this will take me awhile to read though.

 

[Kurben]

A good rousing narrative about the Plantagenet Kings. Starts after the three Norman Kings (William the Conqueror and his two sons William II Rufus and Henry I)
are done in 1135 and goes on to the last Plantagenet(Richard II, 1399). It covers the civil war between Stephen and Matilda until 1154. Her son (Henry II) then became the first Plantagenet King. Funnily enough they never called themselves Plantagenets. That word for the family came later. Henry II,s father Geoffrey was called Plantagenet some times because of his habit to put the flower of PLANTA GENISTA on his hat. Perhaps he was a litte vain?

Planta Genista (I think broom in english? Ginst in swedish)

 

[muskrat]

So I’m ankle deep in Kirby’s complete run of Fantastic 4, diggin it the most, when a sinister, cackling delivery man sped by and tossed me a tightly bound package—from a publisher name of Russ Cochran. Ah, good old Russ, been a dear friend and book dealer to me since before my teen years, and if you know the name you know what kinda books I’m talkin.

Blam! Seven thick, square-bound EC Annuals, 3 - 5 issues apiece, full color reprints on God blessed newsprint...some of the finest Entertaining Comics ever produced, my friends. Vault of Horror, Haunt of Fear, Shock and Crime Suspenstories, and Mad’s original sister-mag, Panic...oh god, oh god...ten bones (heh) each, and a flat fiver covers shipping no matter how many you choose. Thanks again, Russ.

And thank you, Old Witch...where ever you are.

 

[Edward John]

View attachment 33206
A good rousing narrative about the Plantagenet Kings. Starts after the three Norman Kings (William the Conqueror and his two sons William II Rufus and Henry I)
are done in 1135 and goes on to the last Plantagenet(Richard II, 1399). It covers the civil war between Stephen and Matilda until 1154. Her son (Henry II) then became the first Plantagenet King. Funnily enough they never called themselves Plantagenets. That word for the family came later. Henry II,s father Geoffrey was called Plantagenet some times because of his habit to put the flower of PLANTA GENISTA on his hat. Perhaps he was a litte vain?
View attachment 33208
Planta Genista (I think broom in english? Ginst in swedish)

I'm actually doing a course on King Stephen at the moment! One thing you can't say about the current monarchs of Britain, they are not the descendants of the ancient kings of Scotland and England, therefore, to me, illegitimate.

 

[Kurben]

I'm actually doing a course on King Stephen at the moment! One thing you can't say about the current monarchs of Britain, they are not the descendants of the ancient kings of Scotland and England, therefore, to me, illegitimate.

Kind of a risky argument isn't it? I mean William the conqueror wasn't a descendant of the anglo-saxon kings of england. Alfred The Great, Athelstan, Edward the confessor and the rest. And Henry VII wasn't a descendant of the plantagenets which in turn would make both the Tudors and the Stuarts illegitimate. But of course if we start with the last Stuart then the following Hanoverian kings were no relatives at all. The best for Scotland is perhaps to clone Robert The Bruce, right?

 

[Edward John]

Kind of a risky argument isn't it? I mean William the conqueror wasn't a descendant of the anglo-saxon kings of england. Alfred The Great, Athelstan, Edward the confessor and the rest. And Henry VII wasn't a descendant of the plantagenets which in turn would make both the Tudors and the Stuarts illegitimate. But of course if we start with the last Stuart then the following Hanoverian kings were no relatives at all. The best for Scotland is perhaps to clone Robert The Bruce, right?

Well, the Stuarts date back to the middle ages in some form or another, plus, the Stuarts are the descendants of the Kings of England and Scotland which I greatly respect. I would be all for the current Stuart claimant, which is currently Franz, Duke of Bavaria (Also King of Scots as far as I am concerned) to return. The current monarchy are descendent of George II, who ethnically cleansed the Highlands after the battle of Culloden, so I will never bow to them or swear any form of allegiance, which they require you to do for some things, but I won't. The university where I study actually managed to replicate Robert the Bruce's face using his skeleton. Here you go:


I wish Bruce would return, he would get rid of the traitors, both the Scots and the English! I think I'm just partial to the Stuarts because they swore to secure Scottish independence and nationhood, something which, three centuries later, we still don't have. Sweden broke away from a union with Denmark I believe, the Scandinavians and the Celts should form their own European Union, call it the Scandinavian Union? What do you say?

 

[Kurben]

Well, the Stuarts date back to the middle ages in some form or another, plus, the Stuarts are the descendants of the Kings of England and Scotland which I greatly respect. I would be all for the current Stuart claimant, which is currently Franz, Duke of Bavaria (Also King of Scots as far as I am concerned) to return. The current monarchy are descendent of George II, who ethnically cleansed the Highlands after the battle of Culloden, so I will never bow to them or swear any form of allegiance, which they require you to do for some things, but I won't. The university where I study actually managed to replicate Robert the Bruce's face using his skeleton. Here you go:
View attachment 33222

I wish Bruce would return, he would get rid of the traitors, both the Scots and the English! I think I'm just partial to the Stuarts because they swore to secure Scottish independence and nationhood, something which, three centuries later, we still don't have. Sweden broke away from a union with Denmark I believe, the Scandinavians and the Celts should form their own European Union, call it the Scandinavian Union? What do you say?
View attachment 33223

Sounds like a plan!! Amazing what you can do with modern technology, isn't it. They made a thourough examination of Richard III skeleton when they found it in 2012. Turned out most of what we thought we know was wrong. He wasn't hunchbacked, He didn't have a deformed arm and the portraits made of him doesn't seem to be right (they were painted about 30 years after his death. He was blond with blue eyes according to DNA with 96% probability. The only thing wrong with was that he had scoliosis in his spine which resulted in his right shoulder slightly higher than his left. But that, once he had dressed, wouldn't be notice-. Interesting that sources can be so completely false and get away with it for so long.

 

[fljoe0]

View attachment 33161....outstanding collection!......I had already read some of the stories, but others are just knockin' the hat right off my imagination's noggin.....

We are discussing Wolverton Station the next Wed the board is open. Be there, aloha.

 

[Edward John]

Sounds like a plan!! Amazing what you can do with modern technology, isn't it. They made a thourough examination of Richard III skeleton when they found it in 2012. Turned out most of what we thought we know was wrong. He wasn't hunchbacked, He didn't have a deformed arm and the portraits made of him doesn't seem to be right (they were painted about 30 years after his death. He was blond with blue eyes according to DNA with 96% probability. The only thing wrong with was that he had scoliosis in his spine which resulted in his right shoulder slightly higher than his left. But that, once he had dressed, wouldn't be notice-. Interesting that sources can be so completely false and get away with it for so long.

Yeah, most of history, or what is perceived as history, is likely wrong. I mean, up until recently, people thought Robin Hood was real! You really cannot trust any source from that era that has anything to do with battles, they are greatly exaggerated. I remember those traits you noted about Richard III is what was famous about him, but its ridiculous!There are certain periods of Scottish history I wish there were more sources for, but alas. Most sources, as you said, were written well after it happened. The amount of ridiculousness written about most English monarchs is just funny!

 

[Kurben]

Yeah, most of history, or what is perceived as history, is likely wrong. I mean, up until recently, people thought Robin Hood was real! You really cannot trust any source from that era that has anything to do with battles, they are greatly exaggerated. I remember those traits you noted about Richard III is what was famous about him, but its ridiculous!There are certain periods of Scottish history I wish there were more sources for, but alas. Most sources, as you said, were written well after it happened. The amount of ridiculousness written about most English monarchs is just funny!

Robin Hood is an interesting example. There was, for a fact, a lot of "free men" that lived as robbers in that time so a figure like him can very well have existed but the tales are of course over the top. The oldest source where he is mentioned before all the romance was put in (Marion) then its just him and Little John as leaders for a band of Free men angry at the evil King. And that evil King was Edward, not John. Sadly it does not say which edward. So i think it is possible that a kind of proto-Robin Hood existed in that time but the stories are then exxagerated and later they planted them in King John And King Richard I time. The time of the Edwards was a time of high taxation because of all the wars they fought. This drove many from their homes to a life as robbers, especially during the weak Edward II that was despised by his people. The other Edwards you complained about the taxes but you respected them as Kings (at least in England, i'm sure Scotland had a very different view of it since many of the wars was against Scotland). So i'm inclined to believe (since i am of the opinion that many legends has a basis in fact) a proto Robin Hood existed in the time of Edward II and then the myth grow from there, a romantic interest was added (Marion) a big Foe (Sheriff of Nottingham) and other characters was introduced and the setting changed to a suitable chivalric era. A typical case of mythbuilding from a rather small but still factual basis.