Visiting Lady Jane Grey and the Tudor period

While the calendar was moving another year ahead, I headed the other direction, visiting the past through a collection of historical fiction and non-fiction, in both book and film

I spent two or three weeks in Tudor England, with Lady Jane Grey and her family. Her most famous relatives were the Tudor Kings and Queens and her life ended violently like so many royal Tudor women.

Jane’s story is tragic. At only 15 she was manoeuvred onto the English throne to replace her recently deceased cousin Edward. She was quickly deposed by Mary, Edward’s older sister, and was eventually executed.

Viewing her story through various formats has shown me how difficult it must be to get an accurate understanding of history. There are many variables caused by gaps in evidence. If we want our history to be more than lists of facts and dates, we’ll have to recognise how much imagination and speculation play in its recording and reporting.

All of my books about Jane Grey presented more or less the same basic outline, but diverged slightly depending on the author’s own point of interest. For example Faith Cook’s book Lady Jane Grey: Nine Day Queen (non fiction) focused on Jane’s faith and how her protestant beliefs contributed to her death.

Alison Plowden in Lady Jane Grey and the House of Suffolk took a broader view and placed Jane within the context of her family, where they came from and the tragedies that continued after Jane’s death due to their proximity to the throne and the potential threat they could play to the reigning monarch. While Jane suffered at the hands of Mary, her surviving sisters suffered at the hands of Mary’s successor, Elizabeth, probably because they were next in line to the throne when Elizabeth had no children of her own.

Alison Weir’s book Innocent Traitor was fiction, but Weir is a respected historian and I found her story didn’t stray from what I learned from the other “factual” accounts. Her familiarity with Tudor times helped to flesh out Jane Grey’s world, giving depth to her cultural and physical environments. This is the only kind of historical fiction I’m interested in reading – where the known facts are not discarded, and nothing blatantly wrong is added merely for the sake of the story.

The 1980s film Lady Jane is a clear example of the latter. While half of the film does stay with the basic historical record, the other half is a sentimentalised romance where Jane becomes an impulsive, giggling girl far different from every other account of her story. The change comes after her forced marriage to Guilford Dudley, by all historical accounts not a happy relationship and one that rarely saw them together. Yet the film turns them into doting and inseparable partners who even manage to share a cell in the Tower of London after their arrest by Mary.

Another work of historical fictional that I read was Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall, a winner of the Mann Booker Prize. While I enjoyed the book, which encouraged me to read further in the period depicted (I’m currently reading a biography of William Tyndale), it also made me wonder about the judging standards of one the most prestigious literary prizes. What made this book stand above others? Personally I found some of the writing was clumsy – often I didn’t know who was being written about. The main character Thomas Cromwell was mostly referred to as “he”, which was often confusing when the “he” in a sentence could also be one of the other characters. Mantel seemed to realise this herself in parts of the book and she made it clear by saying “he, Cromwell...” but that clarification was sporadic and inconsistent.

Also at times I felt that Mantel used inappropriately modern language – one example I recall was a reference to something being “stuffed up” when it was done wrong. Maybe that quibble is merely a sign of my own ignorance of Tudor idioms; perhaps the term does date back that far.

A graphic understanding of the period came through a miniseries Elizabeth I starring Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth. This film is not recommended for the squeamish, holding little back from its portrayal of beheadings and other executions, including drawing and quartering.

If nothing else, all of these accounts of the Tudor period show how tenuous the lives of those close to royalty could be. How easy it was to fall from favour and fall victim to the headsman’s axe (or worse).

I have a few more books about Lady Jane and Tudor times to read, so I'm sure I'll be returning to this subject beofre long.

Reading Israel

Although I’ve added a few more titles to the list of books I’ve read this year, I haven’t written about them on this blog.

My recent reading has all been related to Israel and the Jewish people and “reviewing” those books here would not be in line with my intentions for this blog. Instead I have addressed issues relating to these books on my “theological” blog ONESIMUS FILES .

I am currently reading Mission Survival, edited by Ruth Bondy, Chad Zmora & Raphael Bashan. It is a continuation of my interest in Israel, examining 1967’s Six Day War. Compiled from letters and articles written at the time, the book gives a very personal insight into the Israeli people facing a massive Arab attack on their land, with the Arabs threatening to annihilate the 20 year old nation. A very real threat that has not gone away more than 40 years later – but a threat that the majority of the media ignores with their clear anti-Israel bias.
I haven’t added this book to my reading list in the side bar because I’m not confident of finishing it. It is a library book and I’m content to read as much as I can during the loan period without feeling pressured to get to the end.

The common link with all of these recent books is the amazing story of people who were dispersed from their land almost 2000 years ago; were scattered through almost every nation on earth, were continually persecuted like no other race throughout history – and STILL managed to survive to return to their ancestral land.

Not only did they return, but they survived and thrived through several attempts by their neighbours to drive them out, and in surviving these attacks, they increased their land as their attackers fled from the much smaller Israeli forces.

All of this should be seen as “miraculous”, but most people ignore, or have forgotten, how unlikely the survival of Israel has been. Everything in history has been against them and yet they survived to become and remain the centre of world attention for over six decades. Has a day gone by without something about Israel being mentioned in the media?

Maybe a significant reason that people ignore the incredible odds that were against the survival of Israel – is the fact that their whole history of rejection, loss, persecution and restoration had been foretold thousands of years before. To recognise the miracle of Israel it would be necessary to recognise the God who revealed their history in so much such detail from their very earliest days.
These predictions are not hidden. They are found in one of the world’s most successful books, The Bible, which is found in most homes in Western nations but rarely read.

Rich Mixture by Stuart Haywood

Stuart Haywood’s book has a nostalgic appeal. I spent my childhood in the area he describes and I lived less than a kilometre from his childhood home a couple of decades later.
I was familiar with most of the places he describes, either though my own experience or through stories my parents have shared over the years.

I left South Derbyshire when my family moved to Australia and have never lost my interest in that area, although I am the only one of my family not to return for a holiday. From what I have heard, the place I remember has changed significantly and I probably wouldn’t recognise much of it.

Rich Mixture describes parts of the region as I remember it, helping me to recall details I had forgotten. Those moments of familiarity and being able to picture the places being described were the source of most of the pleasure I found in this book. And it made me think about the possibility of recording my own memories of childhood.

Stuart Haywood has an article about his wartime childhood here:
http://www.bygonederbyshire.co.uk/stories/Stuart-s-wartime-childhood-Newhall/article-1796888-detail/article.html

Binary Moon: two views of the Apollo Missions

Alan Shepard & Deke Slayton were two of the original intake of astronauts for the American space program. Shepard was the first American into space but soon after was removed from active flight duty due to an ear problem that affected his balance. Slayton was also removed from flight duty because of a minor heart problem. These two men remained with NASA as managers of the astronaut department

The writing of Moon Shot is credited to Shepard and Slayton but its writing had a significant contribution from Jay Barbree and Howard Benedict, journalists with a background in aerospace reporting.

Moon Shot gives a good general (and brief) coverage of the space race of the 1960s – early 70s, with a more detailed concentration on the roles of Shepard and Slayton and how they overcame their health issues to be reinstated to active flight service. Shepard was reinstated in time to command Apollo 14 and become the 5th man to walk on the moon. Slayton missed out on a moon mission and barely scraped into the last pre-shuttle mission, a joint USA- USSR flight in which the rendezvous and docking of the two nations' craft was achieved.

I read the book immediately after Andrew Chaikin’s A Man on the Moon and my reading experience suffered because of it. Chaikin’s book is much more detailed and to my mind much better written. He interviewed almost every surviving astronaut from the Apollo era as well as their wives and many of those behind the scenes. His descriptions of events and memories were written using information gained from these interviews but without the obvious flights of imagination used in Moon Shot.

In my previous post I mentioned the Moon Shot account of the first moon landing which gives an imaginative description of Neil Armstrong’s eyes as “tired but warm with anticipation”.
This was only one example of what marred the book. How about this description of the separation of the stages of a rocket?

“Explosive charges blew apart the two stages with all the velvety touch of a locomotive thundering off a high trestle to roll down a rocky slope”.

I also found that parts of the book were over-sentimentalised and soap-opera like. Yes, I’m sure that astronauts and their families did experience some strong emotions – but those feelings could have been explored with greater skill than was utilised.

In my previous post I described the book’s style as “new journalism gone mad”. So much was written that was not based on obtainable fact or observation – so much imaginative speculation was presented as fact (as in the Armstrong eyes example). “New Journalism” at its best gives literary style to description without resorting to unverifiable detail. At times it might get into the head of a “character” and explore his/her thoughts and emotions, but the exploration needs to be based on substantial evidence from interview with (and observation of) the person being portrayed.

In contrast, I don’t know whether there could be a better book of its type than Chaikin’s. It addresses the major developments in the space programme from the beginning through to the climax of the moon missions, examining every moon landing (and the aborted Apollo 13 flight) with enough detail to highlight the individual achievements of each Apollo crew.
The book provided the basis for Tom Hank’s mini series From the Earth to the Moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon_(TV_miniseries)

Not on OUR moon they haven't!!!

My first introduction to the space race came at a very early age during a journey to Sunday school.
Each Sunday morning my Aunt would pick me up from home and we would walk to the Methodist church about 15 minutes away. We would be accompanied by a boy two or three years older than myself who informed me that a Russian rocket had crashed on the moon*.
My initial response must have been one of shock, but common sense soon took over as I reassured myself that it wasn’t OUR moon that they’d crashed into but the Russian moon.
Despite his attempts, my older companion could say nothing to convince me that the “Russian moon” was the very same one that we could see in England.

A few years later my school class started to follow the progress of the Apollo moon program, though after more than forty years I can’t recall whether the interest started with Apollo 7 or 8. Certainly there would have been more interest in the latter mission considering it was the first time man had broken away from the earth to travel to the moon. It was a genuinely historic achievement perhaps best signified by a photograph taken on the flight, of the blue earth rising above the grey wasteland of the moon.

From that time onwards I was fascinated by anything space related and was caught up in the excitement leading up to the moon landing and shared concern over the fate of Apollo 13.
There were other missions to the moon and while possible I followed the diminishing amount of news devoted to those missions. The media and the general public seemed to lose interest when the novelty started to fade. Familiarity was starting to get close to breeding contempt and the last few moon missions were scrapped as the lessened public interest led to politically expedient funding cuts.

For decades NASA’ s manned space programme plodded along almost unnoticed by the general public – except when tragedy added enough spice to attract attention again.
The Challenger disaster was the first time American astronauts were lost during a mission. Exactly 19 years and one day earlier three astronauts had died in a fire during training on Apollo 1 but that had occurred out of the public eye. Challenger exploded on our TV screens ending a highly publicised mission in which a civilian, a teacher, was intended to add a more positive note to American space flight history than actually eventuated.
That tragedy briefly undermined any misconceptions the public may have developed about the potential dangers associated with manned space exploration. But the necessity of a lengthy investigation into the tragedy meant that the public’s attention had again drifted by the time the space shuttle program resumed.

I recall my feelings at the time of the Challenger incident. Along with the obvious horror regarding the loss of life I realised that had I been given the chance, I would have immediately joined a shuttle crew myself, despite the obvious risk. I’m not sure I’d be so willing now, not through concern of the dangers but because I now have other priorities.

What is the relevance to all of this on a blog about books?
I suppose this background is merely an introduction. I am currently reading Andrew Chaikin’s book A Man on the Moon, a history of the Apollo astronauts and their mission to reach the moon. I also have several others on the same topic waiting to be read when I’ve finished Chaikin’s 600+ page book.

The others include an authorised biography of Neil Armstrong, Charlie Duke’s autobiography (an autographed copy I’ll be receiving for my birthday. Shhh! I’m not supposed to know) and two volumes by Colin Burgess and Frances French, Into That Silent Sea and In the Shadow of the Moon.
I also have an Alan Bean book on order about his artworks in which he has painted aspects of the moon landings.
His paintings are unique due to his personal involvement in the program (he was the fourth man to walk on the moon); his use of his space suit boots and tools from Apollo 12 to create interesting texture; and the incorporation of materials from his spacecraft and also moon dust within his paintings. Examples of his artwork can be seen here: Alan Bean

--------
* This was probably Luna-5 which crashed during an attempted landing on 9 May 1965.

The New Atheist Crusaders, by Becky Garrison

This was cheap book I picked up on sale at a Christian bookshop. The subtitle “The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith” appealed to me. I have always found it very ironic that so many atheists are more vocal about a God in whom they don’t believe, than most professing Christians are about the God to whom they are supposed to be devoted.
The letters pages of most newspapers have their regular atheist contributors who seem to have little better to do than attack a “non-existent” God.

Becky Garrison is a self-described satirist whose specialty is writing religious exposés for “The Wittenburg Door, the oldest, largest and only religious satire magazine in the United States”. In this book she turns to her keyboard to deal with the “New Atheists” a currently prominent collection of men (the most well known perhaps being Richard Dawkins) who have recently become famous for attacking religious faith. Their view is that religion has been the cause of all human evils and the sooner it is abolished, the sooner mankind can settle down and be nice to each other.

The problem with this book is that Garrison doesn’t succeed with her attempt at “satire”. There was nothing really satirical within this book, even though Garrison keeps reminding the reader that she is a satirist, trying to convince us that she is using satire to make her point. Allying herself with “fellow satirist Jonathon Swift” hardly does her a favour; it merely highlights the chasm between a classic master of the form and a modern day wannabe.

I found this book works best when Garrison uses quotes from the targeted “New Atheists” who very readily shoot themselves in the foot with comments such as this one attributed to Sam Harris:
“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion. I would not hesitate to get rid of religion”.

Other quotes highlight how theologically ignorant these men are, with many of their arguments based on their own imagined theological framework. The religious views they so eagerly demolish are mainly straw men of their own creation. There is more than a hint of “if I were God I’d do things this way and since the Christian God doesn’t do it like that, it’s clear that He doesn’t exist”.
For example, Richard Dawkins thinks “If he existed and chose to reveal it. God Himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour”. The obvious implication is that God hasn’t done this so therefore He doesn’t exist. But why should the Creator of the universe stoop to fulfilling Dawkins’ expectations? If Dawkins took a little time to learn what God is like and how He relates to His creation it would be clear how pathetic Dawkins’ expectations are.
Likewise, while not exactly a “New” atheist the late Bertram Russell is quoted as saying “If I were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence”. Again it is an argument based on personal assumptions with no regard for the God of the Bible that is being refuted. These men create their own “God” and then tear Him apart.

However, perhaps it is expecting too much to wish that these men had a little more integrity with their treatment of religious belief and the nature of God. The promotion of religious ignorance is an effective tool in their hands. If they had done their Sunday school homework they would be guilty of wilful dishonesty instead of mere ignorance. But I have to admit that many Christians are no less careless in their approach to the sciences and therefore do their own beliefs no favours when they involve themselves with scientific arguments they don’t understand.

I found Garrison’s own approach to the Christian faith was also problematic at times, but I would have been better prepared for that if I’d taken better note of those who endorsed the book in the back cover promotion. While it currently has one of the most popular faces of the church today, the borderline syncretism of the “emergent church” is hardly representative of biblical Christianity. One of its major figures, Brian McLaren, is regularly referenced in the book and is one who gave his endorsement on the cover. To the emergent church “relevance” and tolerance have become the dominant characteristics, even if they lead to a compromising of the essential gospel message.

Certainly there are parts of Jesus’ gospel there, – the parts about loving your neighbour, feeding the hungry and caring for the poor, but they are placed within the context of improving the world and human existence as if they were the purpose of Jesus’ time on earth. But these very temporal matters were NOT the main focus of Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection which was all about reconciling fallen man with a perfect God.
However, those things have such a strong feel-good aspect to them that it’s much easier to promote work towards a better world and a better life than it is to promote dying to ones’ self and living for God. Improving mankind’s temporal state is much easier to sell than it is to promote God’s eternal plans; especially to a generation who needs to have everything now.

While Garrison’s book does expose the hypocrisy of fundamentalist atheists calling for an end to religion, I felt that Garrison was more interested in getting everyone to play nicely together than in exploring the truth. Considering that Jesus said that He is THE TRUTH this book clearly fell short. Maybe we should consider which is most likely to destroy true faith, the loud mouthed clearly hostile atheist; or the purveyor of a watered down, compromised view of Jesus and His gospel.