ipb1's review against another edition
4.0
A smellier, grittier Cadfael! A thoroughly enjoyable 14thC murder/mystery that reeks of the age and had me racing through it. I'm surprised by the middling reviews - I thought it one of the best things I've read in quite a while.
kathann's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25
crssmith's review against another edition
dark
reflective
tense
fast-paced
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
erndixon's review against another edition
4.0
Started a bit slow, but once it starts getting hold of you it sweeps you off your feet.
lavenderhills's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
gracequast13's review against another edition
mysterious
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
alisongodfrey's review against another edition
5.0
Barry Unsworth is a fantastic writer. He brought the story to life so well I could almost smell the stench of the unwashed townspeople. Brilliant.
kalchainein's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
leigh_ann_15_deaf's review against another edition
3.0
Deaf reader reviewing books with deaf characters. This book is ranked on my blog list of deaf characters in fiction: https://slacowan.com/2023/01/03/ranked-deaf-characters-in-fiction/.
For a story predicated on the wrongful imprisonment of a deaf woman for the murder of a boy, Jane features very little. There is one dynamic scene with her, and a brief reappearance at the end.
The narrator, Nicholas, is a runaway priest who joins a traveling acting troupe. The troupe leader in particular, Martin, can communicate in “signs,” which are conventionalized at least in the players’ group. I’m curious as to whether these signs are taken from historical record (eg, Cistercian signs), or if they are Unsworth’s creation. If they are based on monastic signs, I wonder how actors came to learn it. In any case, the signed dialog between Martin and Nicholas is well-written. The players’ signs are referenced throughout the novel, and are used mainly to emphasize their dialog (“we could take as much again” with sign for money) or to give cues to ad libbing players (repeat, take note of my changes, etc).
Unfortunately, the hearing savior trope crops up: Only Martin is able to understand Jane’s truth. Why wouldn’t her father be able to visit her and get her story, then tell it to everyone else? He already seems to know what had happened, but he hasn’t spoken out about it or been agitating for his daughter’s freedom.
Further, there's a lot of initial mystery for Nicholas and the troupe about the woman (Jane) found guilty of robbing and murdering 12 year old Thomas Wells. They hear gossip and ask direct questions that are never answered, but no one states the woman’s name nor that she is deaf, instead mentioning that she is an unmarried daughter living in her father’s house. Unsworth is using deafness as gimmick/plot twist - withholding information that ought to be foregrounded, and would be historically. "Deaf and mute" or "afflicted" or something along those lines would have been used as a descriptive referent, a clear indication of disability for the players listening in on the story.
Her father does mention she is “afflicted” but when Nicholas repeats this questioningly he changes the subject. When Nicholas asks her name, and gets “Jane,” who “cannot bear witness.” (This means to testify to Christian faith through words and actions, demonstrating you have heard and seen God’s truth. Back in the day, deaf people—especially non-speaking ones—were often excluded on the basis that they could not hear the gospel.)
Unfortunately, the hearing savior trope crops up: Only Martin is able to understand Jane’s truth. Why wouldn’t her father be able to visit her and get her story, then tell it to everyone else? He already seems to know what had happened, but he hasn’t spoken out about it or been agitating for his daughter’s freedom.
Further, there's a lot of initial mystery for Nicholas and the troupe about the woman (Jane) found guilty of robbing and murdering 12 year old Thomas Wells. They hear gossip and ask direct questions that are never answered, but no one states the woman’s name nor that she is deaf, instead mentioning that she is an unmarried daughter living in her father’s house. Unsworth is using deafness as gimmick/plot twist - withholding information that ought to be foregrounded, and would be historically. "Deaf and mute" or "afflicted" or something along those lines would have been used as a descriptive referent, a clear indication of disability for the players listening in on the story.
Her father does mention she is “afflicted” but when Nicholas repeats this questioningly he changes the subject. When Nicholas asks her name, and gets “Jane,” who “cannot bear witness.” (This means to testify to Christian faith through words and actions, demonstrating you have heard and seen God’s truth. Back in the day, deaf people—especially non-speaking ones—were often excluded on the basis that they could not hear the gospel.)
Jane doesn't make an appearance until halfway through the novel, when Martin and Nicholas go to the prison to meet the woman. The overseer cons a shilling out of them to let them speak to her—he must have guessed they didn’t know she was deaf. The moment she makes a “strange-pitched” sound, both realize that she cannot speak. Martin asks if she can hear him, and when she makes no indication that she can they realize she cannot hear. Notably, Martin speaks with “kindness in his tone but nothing of pity.”
Martin begins to “mime” the players’ signs, and Jane immediately responds in signs of her own, but Nicholas doesn’t recognize them, suggesting she is using home signs. Nicholas is doing a lot of guesswork in trying to follow their conversation, and notes that both occasionally struggle to understand each other and have to modify their signs and use mimicry to get their points across, in addition to emotional expression and body language. Jane’s anger and disgust come through plainly when Martin asks if she kissed the Monk who arrested her, suggesting she has intelligence and knowledge of social etiquette and moral expectations. The discussion speeds up and they sort of dance around each other as they mime and act things out, and Nicholas soon loses all sense of it. But he does notice that Jane is very beautiful, as though deafness and conventional beauty are incongruous.
Now knowing her innocence, the players alter the play to make the true story of Thomas Wells. They are arrested and brought to the lord’s castle, where there is a jousting tournament. The young knight who had been injured in jousting is later on the verge of death, and Nicholas is brought to perform final rites. Nicholas understands from looking at his open-eyed catatonic state that “the blow had taken away hearing and speech,” though it’s not clear that this is literal or a metaphor for consciousness.
Jane is freed at the end by the Justice and kisses his hand. She signs and voices nothing, and is given to Nicholas to be escorted home.
While I was glad to see that Jane has a personality and intelligence, I was less ecstatic that her story is filtered through hearing men's at every turn. Even when she has the opportunity to tell her own story, Nicholas can only understand bits and pieces of Martin's signs, not hers, and so guesses through Martin's understanding of her signs. In the end, she only communicates gratitude to the Justice for his role in her freedom--which amounted to walking into the prison and walking out with her. The story ends there, so we get nothing further.
While I was glad to see that Jane has a personality and intelligence, I was less ecstatic that her story is filtered through hearing men's at every turn. Even when she has the opportunity to tell her own story, Nicholas can only understand bits and pieces of Martin's signs, not hers, and so guesses through Martin's understanding of her signs. In the end, she only communicates gratitude to the Justice for his role in her freedom--which amounted to walking into the prison and walking out with her. The story ends there, so we get nothing further.