The Shining Company (Sutcliff)

[cahn]

Note the first: I apparently always want to add an extra e to Sutcliff's name. Sigh.

Note the second: Oh, hey, by the way, rarewomen happened and ALSO DIDO FIC, including SF Dido!AU!(Here is where I squee about it — if you don't know the Aeneid, it's okay, you need only this post and this to read them — and here’s my reveal post and more nattering on about the Greek Myth SF AU (spoilers!).)

4/5. This book sat on my shelf for a month because I’ve only read Sutcliff’s Roman stuff (uh, two books) and I was kind of side-eyeing her taking on a Celtic subject. Um. Sometimes I’m kind of stupid. This was totally amazing: gorgeous prose and the research I expect from her and allllll my tropes as usual (loyalty, friendship, partnership, hard choices, etc.) and what the heck it’s a retelling of Y Goddodin. (I am thick. I did not realize this until Aneirin showed up.) WHAT. I think the last half of the book I kept on going !!!! Y Goddodin!!!!

I mean, I guess that if one looked at it rationally, one could come up with a lot of things that might be slightly obnoxious. There’s essentially no plot. The plot, such as it is, is, well, the plot of Y Goddodin, which is to say the plot of every Welsh poem ever. (Hint: The Welsh don’t make poetry about their awesome victories and how they totally crushed the other guy, dude. They just don’t. This is not a super-feel-good book.) The prose is sort of partially Welsh-reminiscent and partially Roman-Britain-reminiscent, which might bother someone who was a little more involved with the era than I.

But I don’t look at this book rationally :)

Comments

[thistleingrey]

Interesting. Y Gododdin is great, in its way--I didn't know that there's a novel based upon it, though it makes sense that Sutcliff would've written such a thing. I've read barely any Sutcliff, and now I wonder a bit whether it's too late. :/

[cahn]

Ha, I was thinking of you writing this post, and wondering whether you'd read it!

I hadn't read any Sutcliff before, umm, six months ago? and I feel like it isn't too late, I still love them all madly -- the chief difference is that I think if I'd read them when I was a kid I would have reread them many times and they would have been a huge part of my psyche and literary landscape, the way The Dark is Rising is, or Pamela Dean's Tam Lin, or the Duane Wizard books... all of which, I think, if I'd come to them this year, I would have thought were really lovely, and then gone off and forgotten about them. Which is how I feel about Sutcliff. So I do wish I'd read her when I was a kid, but I do still love them. But YMMV.

But I wouldn't start with this one, maybe? Maybe one of the Roman Britain ones, like Eagle of the Ninth, something you're a little less likely to have strong feelings about? Because I do worry a little that with this particular one, your feelings about the original might get in the way. (Y Goddodin isn't one of the poems I know a great deal about, so I didn't have that problem.)

[thistleingrey]

Yes, it's research specialities I'm wondering about, not calendar age. :) Most RB-set things I've read rub me the wrong way, sometimes to the extent that I can't tell whether the rest of the book is solid (e.g. Dreaming the Eagle, which seems okay in terms of heroic sweep?). My training spans the texts and manuscripts of sixth- to early fifteenth-century British Isles as was--well, modern England and Wales mostly, with Ireland, Scotland, and the peripheral islands only intermittently, but by the time you're writing a sentence that says, "Not so much Man and the Orkneys or Hebrides," you're pretty far in. :/ </wordy> Anyway, good to know that the book works as itself; I may get there sometime.

[carmarthen]

Sutcliff is definitely not Manda Scott, and I'd say that her research holds up pretty well, considering--but for both reasons of access and the stories she was trying to tell, obsessive historical accuracy is not a thing, and she bought pretty thoroughly into dodgy New Age 'archaeology' to shape her British and Celtic characters, especially as you go back further in time (not as thoroughly as Manda Scott does, though).

I feel like her Romans are in a lot of ways more 19th/20th century Brits, though; she wasn't really trying to give them Roman attitudes, for the most part.

If there are specific things that rub you the wrong way, I've read most of the easily obtainable Sutcliffs and could probably point you at ones that avoid those things? Or, for her non-RB stuff, I recommend Blood Feud (Vikings and Byzantines), The Shield Ring (Anglo-Saxons and Normans), Knight's Fee (Normans), and possibly Blood and Sand (Ottoman Empire).

[cahn]

Huh, interesting. I hadn't thought about her Romans as 20th-century Brits (although I see what you mean, a bit), and I had no idea about the dodgy New Age archaeology stuff. I would like to know more about this :)

[carmarthen]

Well, certainly I feel like their attitudes towards military service are much more British than Roman (her equestrians almost all take bizarre and unRoman career paths, and look on military service much more...idk, romantically, I guess?), and there's an argument to be made for her trying to work out her feelings about British imperialism via Rome. I...don't always agree with her conclusions. She was heavily influenced by Kipling, FWIW (you might find the article linked here and the discussion interesting).

Here's the citation on the dodgy New Age stuff. But in general the recurring themes in her 'Celts' that I side-eye on a historical front include

1) Strictly segregated Men's Side and Women's Side activities, including pre-teen boys living together communally sans female influence rather than being raised by their families (is there any evidence for this?).
2) 'Matriarchies.' On top of that 'matriarchies' that clearly value men more than women, which makes my brain hurt.
3) Marriage by faux-capture, with rapey undertones. I know there are elements of this in the Roman wedding ceremonies, but is there evidence of that among British tribes?
4) Almost everything involving the Little Dark People.

Hedgebird's entire Sutcliff tag is well worth reading through.

[cahn]

...This is awesome. Thank you so much.

(Oh, yeah. The Little Dark People. I've already had my run-ins with those. Bleah. I only put up with it because I like her language.)

[thistleingrey]

Thanks for this, and you're right, I probably shouldn't have put Sutcliff and Scott into the same implied category in the first place. That post does mention more adept writers.... Obsessive accuracy isn't required, for me, but I have found it harder and harder to read things that lean upon e.g. Graves's White Goddess, even though it's part of what got me interested in medieval texts in the first place, more than twenty years ago.

I will skip the Anglo-Saxon and Norman ones, for now, per the date range in my earlier comment :) and try Blood Feud and Blood and Sand. Thanks also for specific suggestions; her oeuvre is large enough to be blankly intimidating.

[carmarthen]

Some of her Roman stuff doesn't lean too heavily on that oeuvre, I think (basically the more Romans and the less 'Celts' the better off you probably are).

For stuff inside your range:

The Lantern Bearers is probably safe but I can't remember all the details, Sword at Sunset is mostly tactics and stuff (although the Little Dark People may be a general dealbreaker for you--I kind of read past them) and Frontier Wolf only has a few vague references to her handwavy 'Celtic' stuff and is mostly Romans. The Silver Branch is probably fine. (Outcast is lolarious Hollywood Roman in a lot of ways that I can't deal with.) Dawn Wind is mostly Saxons, but free of handwavy Celtic stuff.

Outside your date range, I also enjoyed Simon (English Civil War), although I didn't love it. Sword Song (Vikings) is...kind of weak overall, I think, and not really one I'd recommend if not for it being outside your date range. Unfortunately, Sutcliff's strongest books are within your period of expertise, so most likely to run into stuff that will bug you.

I'd avoid Warrior Scarlet, Mark of the Horse Lord, and Sun Horse, Moon Horse as the worst offenders on the dodgy Celtic front; Eagle of the Ninth has a little bit, but is mostly safe.

[thistleingrey]

basically the more Romans and the less 'Celts' the better off you probably are

Perhaps! Now I have partially contradictory suggestions from two well-informed readers of Sutcliff :) (you and someone who had a go a few years ago). I'll have to try some of her books myself and see what happens. Thanks again.

[carmarthen]

Well, it's not 100% clear to me what your dealbreakers are--my usual "Sutcliffs I like best" list doesn't apply, so. YMMV.

You might also want to check out hedgebird's general Sutcliff recs, idk (I disliked Warrior Scarlet intensely and it falls smack into the bronze age danger zone, though).

[thistleingrey]

No worries--I don't expect anyone to make airtight recommendations, not least because over time, I keep finding new-to-me dealbreakers and letting go of others. I do appreciate what you've written up and linked here.

[cahn]

Ha. I suppose I didn't realize how large a time period your training spanned -- my (halting) textual familiarity, such as it is, is much later (late OE and medieval Welsh), so yeah, I really have very little point of reference for the RB stuff, and Y Goddodin is also too early for me to have a strong opinion. I'm really very interested in the conversation you're having with carmarthen, though!

[thistleingrey]

*nods* The earliest bits of my formal coursework are post-RB, too, obviously, though I spent some time "there" via Latin classes.

ETA Also, the fact that the Modern Languages Association (big US umbrella org for lit/lang academics, more or less) thinks OE and ME should be collapsed together is ridonkulous. Just saying. Sixth through fifteenth is what I was responsible for during quals, plus a roll-your-own thematic reading list; most of the not-English stuff came from undergrad coursework (my alma mater had no grad-level Celtic Studies classes) and random classes I felt like auditing. The funny thing about it, and the reason I've bothered listing it out, is that I'm left with the impressionistic residue in some respects: there are some sharp features and whole chunks in memory, and then there are smears built upon certain assumptions. The latter is where I meet trouble in some fiction that starts from different assumptions, I guess?

[cahn]

Interesting! Also: OE and ME collapsed together is completely ridonkulous, indeed.

[janewilliams20]

If you put the Duane Wizard books in that category, I can see I'll have to read them.

[thistleingrey]

The first three are quite different from one another--I started with #2 accidentally, right when it came out. It kind of depends upon whether NYC by night, deep-sea exploration, or baby computers scratch your particular readerly itch. :) #4 goes to Ireland (not great although Duane has lived there for decades), #5 adds cat wizards, and from there it's kind of remix/expansion of everything that came before, for better or worse. I still love #2 best (sea).

[cahn]

Heh. Have we had this conversation before? I also started with #2 accidentally -- and forgot the author, and only years later came across the omnibus of the first three and was all "Wait, I've read this before..."

But yes, #2 is still the best, although I really love #3 the most (despite what I remember even as a kid thinking were terrible, terrible use of computer jargon/ideas). (Because, I mean, come on, everything after #3 is anticlimax, right? :) )

[thistleingrey]

We haven't! I did read #1 immediately afterwards--#3 wasn't out yet--and I'd already met her work in My Enemy, My Ally, so I was reading two kinds of backwards. (Anticlimax: yes, kinda, alas.)

[cahn]

Yes, I am pretty sure that I got the omnibus of the first three Wizard books as a direct reaction to having read... hmm, I think Spock's World might have actually been my first Duane ST, as it came out around the time I got hooked on ST, and My Enemy, My Ally and Wounded Sky as I could find them in bookstores.

[janewilliams20]

Here's another novel based on it
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Men-Went-Cattraeth-John-James/dp/055317360X

[thistleingrey]

Hmm, thanks.

[janewilliams20]

I think that's one of the very few Sutcliff I haven't read. This will have to be corrected.

[cahn]

Yes! I really like it!

[carmarthen]

Note the first: I apparently always want to add an extra e to Sutcliff's name. Sigh.

You and at least 50% of Sutcliff fandom.

TSC is and will always be one of my favorite Sutcliffs, and I'm not sure why. I mean, yeah, rocks fall, everybody dies, and there's no plot in the modern Western lit sense (but that's true of most Sutcliffs), but idk, I just love it a lot.

The prose is sort of partially Welsh-reminiscent and partially Roman-Britain-reminiscent

I think this is generally true of Sutcliff's take on Roman Britain--I think a while back someone mentioned that some of her "British" grammatical structures are basically literal translations of Welsh expressions.

(I feel like of the Sutcliffs I've read so far, she's strongest in Roman and Post-Roman Britain, although I enjoy Blood Feud a lot; her later settings are good but not quite as passionate; her pre-Roman Celtic stuff trends heavily into Questionable Archaeology territory, and runs awkwardly into her a) subscribing to Mythic Matriarchies, and b) not being very good at imagining a matriarchy that isn't misogynist as fuck.)

[cahn]

Wow, this is really interesting. :) Yeah, I love it so, so much. There's no way she would have been able to get it published nowadays...

I did sort of assume that some of her more archaic-sounding "British" strucutres were Welsh-derived; nice to know :)

Heh. One thing about reading Sutcliff is that one has to sort of let one's wish for female characters take a back seat... that's probably my main complaint. But it hasn't stopped me reading her :)