cahn | Hild (Griffith)

Yeah, this book is that good that I just wanted to TALK about it!

5/5. I adored this book. It basically hit all my buttons it possibly could: seventh-century Britain; a carefully researched milieu that felt real; prose that felt real (sorry, Guy Gavriel Kay, I like your books but I cannot take your prose seriously); politics and more politics; three-dimensional characters, all of whom are political beings and none of whom are one-dimensional heroes or villains; consideration of the webs of power with both women and men; a powerful woman protagonist whose power is intertwined and rooted in being female while the fact that she is still in primarily a man's world is not ignored; women friendships; friendships (of all gender-flavors, whee!) complicated by sex and friendships explicitly not complicated by sex; thoughtfulness about religion and how it is complicated by power; a way of looking at the world that shifted from the old religion to Christianity that rang true to me (in particular, the way that Hild thinks is not at all the way that Paulinus, for example, thinks); the twisting relationship between observation/deduction and prophecy/religion; even a number of shiny things! So, you know.

Somehow I got the impression Hild was a YA book, probably because Hild is fairly young in this book (it starts when she's 3 and ends when she's... a late teen?)... It is not a YA book. At all. Neither in scope, nor in what the narrative demands from the reader in terms of engagement and detail, nor in themes (either in actual plot events -- e.g., the part where Hild is in charge of butchering bandits -- or in complexity).

It reminds me a little of C.J. Cherryh, in that it's very careful and dense and political, and if you try to read it without paying careful attention you'll miss something. A lot of things. I'm pretty sure I missed a lot of things, just because sometimes I read chapters when I was tired or cranky, given the number of things I realized I'd missed on a second reread of various chapters. It's rounder than Cherryh, though. (What do I mean by that? I don't know. But there are books/authors I categorize in my head as feeling angular -- John M. Ford comes to mind; Cherryh as well -- and others I categorize as rounder. And this is one of the rounder ones.)

It also reminds me of Hilary Mantel or A.S. Byatt, bearing in mind I have read exactly two chapters of Wolf Hall. But now I'm going to have to read it. Because I have kept saying I didn't want to start Wolf Hall until the last book came out. Except that now that I've read Hild I can't imagine not having read it, or waiting to read it until the last book in the trilogy comes out. It's that kind of book.

There is a concept of gemaecce, a formal lifelong platonic female bond, that is an important cultural/character part of the novel. (Hild's gemaecca, Begu, turns out to be awesome. I didn't like her that much when she was introduced, but by the end of the book I had completely fallen for her.) I had bought into gemaecce being a Thing in real life, but

thistleingrey informs me that it is not: in particular, she noted that although the word is real and attested in OE, it usually means (hetero) spouse. (Thanks thistleingrey!) Which, as I replied, reminds me of reading A Wind in the Door and being convinced that farandolae were a totally real part of science. (When I found out they weren't, I also stopped believing in mitochondria. Which meant I was really confused when I took biology in high school.) Please, authors, when you just make stuff up, especially when it's surrounded by things you aren't making up, can we have author's notes where you make this a little clearer? In any case, I love and adore the concept of gemaecce and how it plays into the book, even if it's something that was made up.

There's a lot of background that gets dropped in. Textiles, for example, are a big thing, as one might expect from a book that examines the relations between women and power. I found myself wishing I knew a lot more about weaving and other textile arts. It's amazing to me that there was so much background.

In my own area of expertise (shiny things!) I was mostly very pleased (lost wax casting! Gold and silver working! Garnets! Carnelians!) but had one extremely minor quibble: at one point the narrative refers to a "green garnet." Green garnets do exist, and are gorgeous and I love them (and, uh, own a couple), but I am rather dubious a) that they would have been present in 7th-C Britain (as they come from Russia and, more recently, primarily from Africa); and b) that a green stone of any sort (emerald? I believe green tourmaline is mostly from Africa and South America, so would not have been a thing) would have been referred to as garnet -- I assume she is most likely to be referring, linguistically, to the Latin carbuncle (though maybe I'm wrong about that?), which specifically refers to a red (glowing-coal-like) stone. (Same with the actual word garnet, although as that comes from French I'm assuming it wasn't a word at the time. Today's green garnets are classified thus because of their chemistry.) So, you know. Reader wade in at own risk, I guess. Though if that's the biggest problem I have with your book, that's really... a point in your favor.

Warning for period-era violence, period-era death (in war, childbirth, and otherwise), and incest (between half-siblings).

Anyway. It's the kind of thing that I would super-recommend to many people, and would not recommend at all to others. I don't think my sister, for example, would like it at all (she doesn't really go in for Cherryh or Byatt).

I need to go back and read Bede again!

Crossposts: http://charlie-ego.livejournal.com/100875.html

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

janewilliams20

I've taken that as enough of a recommendation that I just went over to Amazon and pre-ordered it for Kindle.

From:

cahn

:) I'm glad! Although it is very dense, be warned. I could not read it when I was tired or otherwise brain-fried. Have you read Cherryh? If you have, you know what I mean :)

From:

philomytha

I've heard enough good things about this book that I really want to read it when I have a bit more headspace for books more complex and thoughtful than Heyer ;-).

From:

cahn

Yeah, I have to say that this is not something I could have, or should have, read two years ago, when my brain was not in that mode. I fully support waiting for a time that's better, because it's the kind of book that will reward that. But anyway, Heyer is awesome :)

From:

luzula

I think this is the most useful-to-me review of this book that I have read! I am now convinced that I will love it. *bumps further up reading list*

Which, as I replied, reminds me of reading A Wind in the Door and being convinced that farandolae were a totally real part of science. (When I found out they weren't, I also stopped believing in mitochondria. Which meant I was really confused when I took biology in high school.)

This story is AWESOME. : )

From:

cahn

Hey, cool! :) What, if I can ask, was useful to you? (I also think you will love it, for what that's worth.)

Oh, man, you know how much I love L'Engle, but I wish I had known as a child not to trust AAAAANYTHING she said about science! (Including dolphins ;) )

From:

luzula

Well, the references to Cherryh and Kay were both useful data points, as was the long list in the first paragraph. Also the bit about the lifelong platonic female bond, because that sounds awesome.

From:

cahn

*nods* Hey, I hadn't realized you'd read Cherryh! And yes, the lifelong platonic female bond is awesome, both as general worldbuilding and in Hild's specific one.

From:

luzula

I listened to many of the Foreigner books as audiobooks (nine of them or something), but then they switched reader and I didn't like the new one (also she pronounced all the alien words differently) so I stopped listening. I really liked them, though.

Also I've read one of the Alliance/Union books and plan to read more. I've got Cyteen in the to-read pile in my bookcase. Anyway, I find Cherryh's writing really vivid and immersive.

From:

cahn

I haven't read any of the Foreigner books -- I'll have to do that!

From:

thistleingrey

I really wanted to be able to ask a fiber historian about the weaving--tablet weaving is certainly old enough, but I've no idea whether it's attested in seventh-century Britain.

I could see seventh-century trade with Russia. Keyword: viking (ninth-century Kievan Rus was ...at least heavily influenced by Varangians/Swedes).

From:

cahn

Heh, I thought of you when reading all the textile stuff. I do think I would have enjoyed it more had I known a little more about it (I mean, I enjoyed it, but there were clearly things I was missing).

Hmmmm. Okay, and if we assume grossular garnets were used in jewelry at that point (which I think is doubtful, but could be the case), that could work, although I still think she would not have used the word "garnet" to describe it :)

From:

thistleingrey

What I appreciate most about the textile stuff is that Griffith put on the brakes at a certain point: there isn't also nålbinding, e.g., because though it may have been around, Hild and Begu probably wouldn't have been doing it.

Fair! And OED2 (1898) agree(d) with you, more or less, now that I think to look. The earliest citations are ca. 1325 (garnet = gold) in the Harley Lyrics, and ca. 1400 as red, spelled "grenaz" in the version of Mandeville's Travels cited). One more thing, however: according to MED, the mid/late medieval spelling encompasses "grenat, grenaz," from Old French grenate, granate. On one hand, this supports your sense that "garnet" is the wrong term, since clear OFr influences upon English predating ca. 1070 are rare and since the link with "pomegranate" definitely implies red. On the other, one can see how gre- would cause confusion with "grene," the most oft-seen spelling for the verdant hue in later medieval England. If nothing else, we can unravel how Griffith got there, even while we conclude that she's wrong. :) (The full headword variant set at MED is "gernet (n.) Also gernad, garnet, garnad, garnard, granat. Pl. garnetes, etc. & grenaz, grenas.")

From:

cahn

It's really cool that Griffith cared enough to get things as accurate as she could, and not just stick in things because she thought it would be neat. (Okay, except that sparrow. Which I liked. :P :) )

Ah, grene and grenat... that does makes sense as a potential confusion.

So it occurs to me that the German for garnet is also granat (er, yes, it says something about me that this is one of the only German words I know), and some googling makes it look like it also came from the French. Which seems odd? I didn't think German had much French influence?

From:

thistleingrey

For granat/similar, they're all borrowing from Latin, and it's not clear whether German got it thence or from French as intermediary. The center actually seems to be
"pomegranate," but the central sense seems to be red splintery-comes-apart thing, insofar as "grenade" (boom!) is related as well. (ETA Cf. "granita," the ice-based treat.)

German borrowing from French: quite a bit in terms of courtly romance, C12-C14. Bits from Latin directly, too--the words for cheese and lawyer (Advocat), e.g., nearly a millennium apart. Some of it has been undone since.

Edited Date: 2014-03-27 04:40 pm (UTC)

From:

cahn

(argh, let's try that logged in)

Ah, I see. I did know the "pomegranate" link, but had thought it came from French, and did not know "grenade" was related! Thank you for letting me mine your lingustic knowledge! :)

From:

antisoppist

I've been intending to get this for my mother, who went to St Hild's College Durham*. She likes Byatt and is currently working her way through Diarmaid MacCulloch's A
History of Christianity so density is not a problem. Your review reminds me of Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy, mainly because of the Dark Ages politics. I may have to read it myself first.

*it has since gone co-ed and merged with Bede, who my mother points out wasn't a saint in her day.

From:

cahn

Hee. Wikipedia tells me Bede was a saint, although I was not previously aware of this either (I knew he was venerable, but that doesn't seem like it does or should necessarily imply sainthood...)

I think you would like it! It sounds like your mother would definitely like it. I think it's quite a bit more dense than Stewart's Merlin trilogy (which I remember being a fairly quick read), but yes, politics reminiscent of that, to the best of my memory. I should go back and read it again... I've forgotten quite a bit of those books.

From:

metaphortunate

I specifically love that Begu is introduced as That Kind Of Girl, i.e., if you kind of identify with Hild as a girl nerd who wants to do boy things and is smarter than a lot of the people around her and feels outcast sometimes and, y'know, is kind of butch and queer, you will maybe not feel very fond of femme fluffy Begu. And then she is just unremittingly awesome. Because ladies are awesome! All kinds!

From:

cahn

YES! And Begu is also very twittery, in a way that kind of annoyed me when I first met her. But then, as you say, so awesome! I particularly love that Begu is very sharp in ways that Hild is not (and sorely needs in her life).

The twitteriness reminds me of the Dowager Duchess of Denver, who is also made of awesome.