Grant's Quest for clarity

I found the first nine chapters of The Daughter of Time ties in with our discussion of what is history/fiction. History is usually describe and associated with fact and is separate from fiction. The depiction of Richard III is that he is an ugly human and a killer. Our main character Alan Grant, is a detective and tries uncover the truth behind who Richard III really was. Grant and his associates are all interpreting different pictures and readings to try and found out what is true history and what is fiction when it comes to the uncertainty of who Richard III really was. Was he the rightfully the last King of the Middle Ages in England? Or was he a power-hungry nephew killer.While reading I found that there is a lot of confusion following the families and it is difficult to know who comes next. “Every Schoolboy turned over the last page of Richard III with relief, because now at last the War of the Roses were over and they could get on to the Tudors, who were dull but easy to follow.” (34) It seems to be a difficult family tree to follow for students in England. I feel that differing between history and fiction is even more difficult. Grant and his associates continue their push to differentiate the between history and fiction. They find that Thomas More’s account of Richard III was based upon false statements from John Morton who was “Richard’s bitterest enemy” (95). I think that this shows that John may have been biased in his interpretation of Richard and tried to paint him to be a bad person ergo, Richard might not have been such a bad guy. There is a lot of evidence that needs to be addressed by the characters to properly distinguish the facts. I’m excited to follow Grant as he attempts to separate true history from fiction.

Work cited

The Daughter of Time Josephine Tey

An Embellished Historical Figure: The Psychedelic Progressive Rock Way

On the case of Richard III and how he is approached in The Daughter of Time, I am reminded, as I often am, of a Pink Floyd song; "Corporal Clegg". Without writing an essay on the song itself (although I would love to), I'll condense my reasoning to this: the corporal in question, to the knowledge of anyone outside of Roger Waters' head, is loosely based on Waters' father, but embellished and made more appropriate for the song at hand (goofy and off-beat, that is). Clearly the situation is dissimilar (Grant and Richard III vs. Pink Floyd fans and this song) but the parallels are there- different levels of embellishment for different purposes.

Pink Floyd - "Corporal Clegg", A Saucerful of Secrets (1968)

Not Everything Is As It Seems

Not  everything  is  as  it  seems...

After  reading  chapters  1-9  of  The  Daughter  of  Time,  my  view  of  Richard  III  has  shifted  slightly.  I  have  never  really  paid  too  much  attention  to  all  the  kings  and  queens  in  England  because  there  are  so  many,  and  most  have  the  same  names,  but  Richard  III  from  what  I  have  heard  of  and  have  been  told  in  this  class,  seems  like  a  terrible  hunchbacked  villain  who  will  do  anything,  including  murder,  to  get  the  throne.  While  reading  The  Daughter  of  Time,  Alan  Grant  takes  us  on  a  journey  through  his  discoveries  of  Richard  III  and  his  belief  that  Richard  is  neither  a  hunchback  or  a  villain,  but  a  seemingly  innocent  man  that  was  portrayed  that  way  by  the  opposing  side.  Based  on  the  evidence  Grant  and  Carradine  has  come  up  with  so  far,  it  appears  impossible  for  Richard  III  to  have  killed  his  brother's children  in  order  to  get  to  the  throne.  Granted  I  have  yet  to  finish  the  book,  and  it  is  a  work  of  fiction  and  mystery,  this  research  seems  to  ring  true.  It  would  not  surprise  me  that  some  of  our  history  would  be  slightly  fabricated  or  strayed  away  from  the  truth  in  order  to  have  an  upper  hand  on  the  common  people  or  to  make  someone  else  look  better.

Looking  at  the  picture below,  tell  me, what  do  you  see?  A  happy  couple  together  or  an  abusive  relationship  in  disguise?  Do  you  think  either  would  be  capable  of  murder?  Below  is the  infamous  picture  of  Jodi  Arias  and  Travis  Alexander.  In  the  early  2000's,  Jodi  Arias  was  convicted  of  the  murder  of  Travis  Alexander,  her  ex-boyfriend  but  continuous  lover.  Based  on  sight  alone,  I  would  not  have  guessed  that  either  of  them  would  be  capable  of  murdering  anyone,  let  alone  the  other.  Unfortunately  pictures,  like  history, do  not  always  reveal  the  truth.  Richard  III  could  have  been  an  innocent  man  convicted  of  something  terrible,  instead  of  the  villain  he  is  known  for.  Jodi  Arias  could  have  been  convicted  for  a  crime  she  didn't  commit.  We  may  never  know  the  truth  of  what  occurred  between  Richard  III  and  his  nephews,  along  with  Jodi  Arias  and  Travis  Alexander.

Works Cited:
The  Daughter  of  Time  by  Josephine  Tey
Jodi  Arias  Murder  Case
Image  from  Google  Images