RivkahChaya: Thanks – glad that “liker” and “non-liker” can converse amicably !
My “beef” isn’t with the ceremonious-addressing thing – “Mr. Grant”, Miss Rivers”, etc. (after so many years, I’ve forgotten most of the characters’ names). And I didn’t particularly object in the main, to the American Carradine guy’s conversation – one particular thing (see below), but that’s for a personal reason which isn’t about “John Bull versus Brother Jonathan”. Nor any problem with Grant’s not sounding like a modern hard-boiled cop.
The modern characters’ conversation seemed to me, just so full of annoying catch-phrases and to my mind “tricksy” and feeble word-play. At the risk of getting into sex-war territory here: I’m male, the author was female – in my perception, many women enjoy using cutesy catch-phrases (whether self-invented, or otherwise) and cutesy private slang – which stuff many men find repellent. A few examples: the use of “Tonypandy” to mean propagandist bullshit, irritates me because (a) I’m a lover of Wales and things Welsh – in English transliteration, the name sounds silly, but it’s a perfectly legitimate Welsh place-name – and (b) in the book, this joke is IMO flogged to death. A medieval financial transaction, involving “marks”, then a part of English currency – the modern-day commentating characters speak of this as having to do with “perks” (perquisites) and also, to-match, “merks” – adaptation of “marks” – to me, word-play of the weakest, inciting throwing-up. A move on Richard’s part, to strengthen his case: getting together London’s magnates to address them about his honourable behaviour and intentions – the speaker tells of his thus addressing the city’s “high heid yins” – oh, please ! This is a book about a historical disputed matter – why not write it in standard English, instead of gratuitously bringing in our Scottish friends’ adaptation of same? What’s the point?
And, catch-phrases – our modern characters having taken to the line that Richard was the good guy: quite early on, they decide that Sir Thomas More’s writings on the matter, were deliberately-falsely written by him to traduce Richard; whence their satirically naming him thence, in all references, “the sainted More”. (Maybe Protestant-versus-Catholic animosity showing up here – don’t know what were Tey’s feelings re same.) Just – tabloidish catch-phrases: I can do without them. And at one time toward the end of the book – Grant is quoting More and “catching him out” in something written by him, and Carradine chimes in, “the mean, burbling, sanctimonious old bastard”. All right – we get it-- Jo, you don’t like Tom – no need to beat us over the head with it !
Trivial stuff for me to get pissed-off with, maybe (the above are only examples – for me, the book is full of such off-pissment-material) – but whether making sense or not, it’s enough to have made me resolve never again in my life, to open the book concerned.
(As regards the actual historical matter – have seen so much to support either side; and general feeling is that so much that happened then is obscure, and will likely never now be clarified: I really don’t know. I’d like Richard to be the good guy, if only because Henry strikes me as a very unattractive character; but maybe they were, in their different ways, pretty much equals.)
.