(no subject)
Jun. 28th, 2006 09:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
polutropeI've been reading much too much historical mystery. Specifically, too much Edward Marston.
I picked up one of his books at the school booksale a few years ago. liked it very much, and resolved to find more. Until now, that hadn't happened. Then, a week or two ago, I found the second half of the series at the library. I read them all.
They probably suffer from being read like that. There are a couple of things I like about him - his style is very good, and his names are perfect. The series is set in Elizabethan England, and is about a theater company, and there are never any moments that jolt me out of the time. However, there are many weak points.
For one thing, the books have the same plot. Of course, that's usually the case with mysteries, but it was more obvious with these. Essentially: Something happens to threaten the troop, often a pretext to get them out of London. There is a murder, either of someone insignificant or of someone in the troop. In the first case, the bookholder, Nick Bracewell, will say that it is his Duty to find out the truth. He does so. There was probably some evil Plot. Despite earlier problems in rehersal, the company goes on to have a stirring performance of the selected play. In the second case, Bracewell uncovers the dastardly Plot to destroy the company, which then, despite earlier problems in rehersal, goes on to have a stirring performance of the selected play. Yeah.
Then, his characters. Or rather, his caricatures. Owen Elias is an 'ebullient Welshman.' Lawrence Firethorn is a superb actor, and egocentric, and chases anything in a skirt. Richard Dart is the butt of pretty much every joke, because he is the youngest apprentice and is bad at his job (and in ten or so books never gets any better). Barnaby Gill is the Clown. He is also egocentric, and Gay. However, he is Brilliant. Edmund Hoode is the playwright, who is often stuck for inspiration, unless he is unlucky in love. Nick Bracewell is the glue that holds the company together. We know these things because they are mentioned every other page, in case we forgot. And that is the sum of their characterization.
A couple of them have girlfriends - Firethorn is married to Margery, and Nick is having an affair with Anne Hendrick. They both suck. Anne's middle name is 'Plot Device' and for someone who is described as 'fearsome' Margery is a real pushover. I sense a strong strain of misogyny - those are the only two recurring female character, and the other women are there to be ogled or, in one case, to be possesive and try to take Hoode away from the stage.
Mr. Marston's double standard is truely grating. When people outside the company sleep around and get drunk every night, it means they are Bad People and probably deserver whatever's coming to them. When Firethorn et al. sleep around and get drunk, it is Funny.
There is a sit-com feeling to the books that annoys me as well. The only 'new' character that stuck around was Frank Quilter, and even he only has a few lines after the book whose focus he is. Aside from him, everything is encapsulated by its book - in fact, I think he has a continuity error. Gill's leg is broken in one book, then in the next there's no mention of it at all. Either he forgot, or his leg healed in a month. From experience, that doesn't work. My favorite ending was the second to last book I read, in which the landlord, who up to then had been Grouchy and Hated the Theater, which was Funny, gets much more sympathetic. And that is the sum of the character growth in the entire series. They don't learn anything, they don't get older, their relationships never change - nothing.
Finally, if a whole theater troop can be a Sue/Stu, this one certainly is. Nick Bracewell is the stuiest stu that ever did stu - he has never made a bad decision over the course of the series, he can fight off two attackers, ect. He is always the peacemaker, and they always trust his judgement. For example, "Do you think we should do Black Antonio or Cupid's Folly?" asked Firethorn. "We should do Cupid's Folly," said Gill, "because it gives me the chance to show off." "Banter, banter, banter," said Firethorn and Gill. "Neither," said Nick, and he was Right, because the Author loves him, "we should do The Corrupt Bargin because blah blah blah roles for both of you blah blah blah compromise." "Oh, how right you are! Nick, you're our hero!" said Firethorn and Gill. And then everyone went on to give the best performance of his life and it was perfect and they all went back to the Queen's Head and got amusingly drunk. The End.
Basically, at the end of every book they give the performance of their lives, and of course they outshine their rivals, who are all horrible people, as the sun outshines the moon. They are the best troop in London, and Firethorn is the best actor evah, and Gill's the best clown and - this is the most unrealistic thing ever. I just wish they weren't the best, because maybe then I'd want to dump them all into the Thames.
Despite all this, it could be worse. I think he's very wise not to try to write much of the plays, although it does lead to a bit of "it was a brilliant play," but I'll take that over godawful verse that's supposed to be brilliant any day.
Now maybe that will get out of my head. I hope.
I picked up one of his books at the school booksale a few years ago. liked it very much, and resolved to find more. Until now, that hadn't happened. Then, a week or two ago, I found the second half of the series at the library. I read them all.
They probably suffer from being read like that. There are a couple of things I like about him - his style is very good, and his names are perfect. The series is set in Elizabethan England, and is about a theater company, and there are never any moments that jolt me out of the time. However, there are many weak points.
For one thing, the books have the same plot. Of course, that's usually the case with mysteries, but it was more obvious with these. Essentially: Something happens to threaten the troop, often a pretext to get them out of London. There is a murder, either of someone insignificant or of someone in the troop. In the first case, the bookholder, Nick Bracewell, will say that it is his Duty to find out the truth. He does so. There was probably some evil Plot. Despite earlier problems in rehersal, the company goes on to have a stirring performance of the selected play. In the second case, Bracewell uncovers the dastardly Plot to destroy the company, which then, despite earlier problems in rehersal, goes on to have a stirring performance of the selected play. Yeah.
Then, his characters. Or rather, his caricatures. Owen Elias is an 'ebullient Welshman.' Lawrence Firethorn is a superb actor, and egocentric, and chases anything in a skirt. Richard Dart is the butt of pretty much every joke, because he is the youngest apprentice and is bad at his job (and in ten or so books never gets any better). Barnaby Gill is the Clown. He is also egocentric, and Gay. However, he is Brilliant. Edmund Hoode is the playwright, who is often stuck for inspiration, unless he is unlucky in love. Nick Bracewell is the glue that holds the company together. We know these things because they are mentioned every other page, in case we forgot. And that is the sum of their characterization.
A couple of them have girlfriends - Firethorn is married to Margery, and Nick is having an affair with Anne Hendrick. They both suck. Anne's middle name is 'Plot Device' and for someone who is described as 'fearsome' Margery is a real pushover. I sense a strong strain of misogyny - those are the only two recurring female character, and the other women are there to be ogled or, in one case, to be possesive and try to take Hoode away from the stage.
Mr. Marston's double standard is truely grating. When people outside the company sleep around and get drunk every night, it means they are Bad People and probably deserver whatever's coming to them. When Firethorn et al. sleep around and get drunk, it is Funny.
There is a sit-com feeling to the books that annoys me as well. The only 'new' character that stuck around was Frank Quilter, and even he only has a few lines after the book whose focus he is. Aside from him, everything is encapsulated by its book - in fact, I think he has a continuity error. Gill's leg is broken in one book, then in the next there's no mention of it at all. Either he forgot, or his leg healed in a month. From experience, that doesn't work. My favorite ending was the second to last book I read, in which the landlord, who up to then had been Grouchy and Hated the Theater, which was Funny, gets much more sympathetic. And that is the sum of the character growth in the entire series. They don't learn anything, they don't get older, their relationships never change - nothing.
Finally, if a whole theater troop can be a Sue/Stu, this one certainly is. Nick Bracewell is the stuiest stu that ever did stu - he has never made a bad decision over the course of the series, he can fight off two attackers, ect. He is always the peacemaker, and they always trust his judgement. For example, "Do you think we should do Black Antonio or Cupid's Folly?" asked Firethorn. "We should do Cupid's Folly," said Gill, "because it gives me the chance to show off." "Banter, banter, banter," said Firethorn and Gill. "Neither," said Nick, and he was Right, because the Author loves him, "we should do The Corrupt Bargin because blah blah blah roles for both of you blah blah blah compromise." "Oh, how right you are! Nick, you're our hero!" said Firethorn and Gill. And then everyone went on to give the best performance of his life and it was perfect and they all went back to the Queen's Head and got amusingly drunk. The End.
Basically, at the end of every book they give the performance of their lives, and of course they outshine their rivals, who are all horrible people, as the sun outshines the moon. They are the best troop in London, and Firethorn is the best actor evah, and Gill's the best clown and - this is the most unrealistic thing ever. I just wish they weren't the best, because maybe then I'd want to dump them all into the Thames.
Despite all this, it could be worse. I think he's very wise not to try to write much of the plays, although it does lead to a bit of "it was a brilliant play," but I'll take that over godawful verse that's supposed to be brilliant any day.
Now maybe that will get out of my head. I hope.
