lisa_setepenre's review
2.0
For awhile now, I’ve been trying to think about what to say about Tyrant, the last book in J. A. Ironside’s series The King’s Knight, focusing on a grizzled and grumpy knight with a heart of gold, Gregory, and his experience of three major events of Richard II’s reign – the Peasants Revolt in 1381, the Appellant Crisis in 1386-88 and Richard’s deposition in 1399. I really enjoyed the first book in the series – it was a lot of fun and although most of the focus was on Gregory’s own story, I enjoyed how Richard II and Henry Bolingbroke were characterised. I didn’t like the second book as much and felt my idea of Richard II and Ironside’s were beginning to dramatically part ways. And then I picked up the third volume.
To be perfectly honest, the whole series hits on one of my bugbears in historical fiction and that is the placing of a fictional character at the centre of notable events in history, where they play a vital role in everything that happens. It’s to Ironside’s credit, of course, that I liked Gregory enough that I didn’t really mind when he ended up playing showstopping roles during the Peasants Revolt and the Appellant Crisis. But I also found it to be a detriment in the third book. Because Gregory is pretty much the voice of reason and the moral compass of the series. He’s grumpy and grim but he’s a good egg who is driven by what’s right.
Which is what make the ending so hard to fathom, where we dive head-first into a world of protagonist centred morality.
His motive? Richard is personally responsible for a plot to harm Gregory’s wife and child during the Epiphany Rising. Because fictional Gregory is vitally important to the Rising’s success or something. The historical Richard allegedly claimed full responsibility for the Rising but it’s very unlikely he was involved in any meaningful way. He was imprisoned, surrounded by spies and cut off from his friends and followers. How, then, did he direct his rebels to focus on Gregory’s family?
Nor is there any evidence that Richard himself was cruel to the families of his enemies. In fact, Henry V would probably have a word or two to say about this. Henry V was only 12 or 13, was with Richard when his father, Bolingbroke, returned to England, breaking the terms of his exile to challenge Richard. Richard would have been well within his rights to use Henry V as a hostage or take retribution against him. But he didn’t – and what’s more, Henry V’s actions as king suggest that he was very fond of Richard.
So why does Richard have to die? He’s too dangerous to Henry IV and too insane to be allowed to live. Just put the mentally ill person down like a dog, Gregory, it’s not disturbing at all. Not even the fact that you’d give a dog a more humane death than this. You’re a real hero, aren’t you?
(Ironside suggests in her author’s notes that Richard II may have suffered Borderline Personality Disorder, within the text he is obviously suffering a psychotic break when he gets murdered.)
And why does it have to be so awful and drawn out? Because there has to be no marks on the body. And Ironside thinks the starvation theory is crap, though it is accepted as the most likely scenario by historians who have studied Richard II.
Additionally, Gregory being motivated to kill Richard in such a cruel and nasty way sits at odds with his character, especially when we’ve seen him intervening to give a horrible person he never liked a quick, merciful death. And he did once count Richard as his friend.
And, yes, Ironside’s characterisation of Richard didn’t sit well with me.
Richard II was a very difficult, complex man who did some pretty awful things. But I have a lot of sympathy for him. The experience of becoming king at ten years old was almost certainly distorting and damaging, he went through traumatic events such as the Appellant Crisis – in which people he considered his friends – were killed and exiled. Even framing the crisis as being for “the greater good”, I still cannot work out how anyone can read about it and think that it wasn’t traumatic for Richard to lose people he loved in horrible, violent ways, to be powerless and almost certainly deposed (Ironside via Gregory rubbishes the idea Richard was briefly deposed, historians who have studied Richard have not), before ending up, in effect, as a puppet.
Ironside’s treatment of Richard in Tyrant is without sympathy. He’s antagonistic, irrational, deluded, frequently threatening violence. While the Appellant Crisis wasn’t dressed up as anything particularly pleasant, I’ve never felt that Ironside depicted how traumatic it would have been for Richard. While Richard’s past trauma is briefly brought up in Tyrant, it’s basically concluded that Richard, on his own, should just been better about how he responds to trauma. Of course, Richard’s trauma doesn’t excuse his actions. But for me, this upsettingly close to labelling Richard as a Bad Victim and, thus, not really a victim at all – undeserving of any sympathy or understanding. He should have just pulled himself up by his own bootstraps and been, you know, a proper, good victim, instead of this nasty little tyrant undeserving of the label ‘victim’. That his trauma doesn’t mean jackshit because it made him cruel rather than kind.
But, hey, Tyrant could be fun at times. The last paragraph was a hoot.
To be perfectly honest, the whole series hits on one of my bugbears in historical fiction and that is the placing of a fictional character at the centre of notable events in history, where they play a vital role in everything that happens. It’s to Ironside’s credit, of course, that I liked Gregory enough that I didn’t really mind when he ended up playing showstopping roles during the Peasants Revolt and the Appellant Crisis. But I also found it to be a detriment in the third book. Because Gregory is pretty much the voice of reason and the moral compass of the series. He’s grumpy and grim but he’s a good egg who is driven by what’s right.
Which is what make the ending so hard to fathom, where we dive head-first into a world of protagonist centred morality.
Spoiler
Because Gregory murders Richard II. Richard II dies a painful, long and cruel death – because of Gregory. It’s Gregory’s who tells Henry IV that Richard has to die, it’s Gregory who chooses the method of Richard’s death and it’s Gregory who basically tortures Richard to death. There is no reason for the book to go there. Ironside could have written Gregory reacting to the news of Richard’s death at home or, at the very least, could have given Richard a better death. Yes this is at odds with the historical record, which suggests Richard was starved to death – but Gregory’s entire existence is already at odds with the historical record and there is even room for Ironside to have Gregory kill Richard in a kinder, swifter way while maintaining some historical accuracy. After all, only Richard’s face was exposed when his body was displayed and the examination of his (incomplete) skeleton in the 1800s only revealed there were no signs of violence on his skeleton. Instead, we get a sequence where Gregory sits and listens to Richard’s pain and torment as he dies for days and does nothing.His motive? Richard is personally responsible for a plot to harm Gregory’s wife and child during the Epiphany Rising. Because fictional Gregory is vitally important to the Rising’s success or something. The historical Richard allegedly claimed full responsibility for the Rising but it’s very unlikely he was involved in any meaningful way. He was imprisoned, surrounded by spies and cut off from his friends and followers. How, then, did he direct his rebels to focus on Gregory’s family?
Nor is there any evidence that Richard himself was cruel to the families of his enemies. In fact, Henry V would probably have a word or two to say about this. Henry V was only 12 or 13, was with Richard when his father, Bolingbroke, returned to England, breaking the terms of his exile to challenge Richard. Richard would have been well within his rights to use Henry V as a hostage or take retribution against him. But he didn’t – and what’s more, Henry V’s actions as king suggest that he was very fond of Richard.
So why does Richard have to die? He’s too dangerous to Henry IV and too insane to be allowed to live. Just put the mentally ill person down like a dog, Gregory, it’s not disturbing at all. Not even the fact that you’d give a dog a more humane death than this. You’re a real hero, aren’t you?
(Ironside suggests in her author’s notes that Richard II may have suffered Borderline Personality Disorder, within the text he is obviously suffering a psychotic break when he gets murdered.)
And why does it have to be so awful and drawn out? Because there has to be no marks on the body. And Ironside thinks the starvation theory is crap, though it is accepted as the most likely scenario by historians who have studied Richard II.
Additionally, Gregory being motivated to kill Richard in such a cruel and nasty way sits at odds with his character, especially when we’ve seen him intervening to give a horrible person he never liked a quick, merciful death. And he did once count Richard as his friend.
And, yes, Ironside’s characterisation of Richard didn’t sit well with me.
Richard II was a very difficult, complex man who did some pretty awful things. But I have a lot of sympathy for him. The experience of becoming king at ten years old was almost certainly distorting and damaging, he went through traumatic events such as the Appellant Crisis – in which people he considered his friends – were killed and exiled. Even framing the crisis as being for “the greater good”, I still cannot work out how anyone can read about it and think that it wasn’t traumatic for Richard to lose people he loved in horrible, violent ways, to be powerless and almost certainly deposed (Ironside via Gregory rubbishes the idea Richard was briefly deposed, historians who have studied Richard have not), before ending up, in effect, as a puppet.
Ironside’s treatment of Richard in Tyrant is without sympathy. He’s antagonistic, irrational, deluded, frequently threatening violence. While the Appellant Crisis wasn’t dressed up as anything particularly pleasant, I’ve never felt that Ironside depicted how traumatic it would have been for Richard. While Richard’s past trauma is briefly brought up in Tyrant, it’s basically concluded that Richard, on his own, should just been better about how he responds to trauma. Of course, Richard’s trauma doesn’t excuse his actions. But for me, this upsettingly close to labelling Richard as a Bad Victim and, thus, not really a victim at all – undeserving of any sympathy or understanding. He should have just pulled himself up by his own bootstraps and been, you know, a proper, good victim, instead of this nasty little tyrant undeserving of the label ‘victim’. That his trauma doesn’t mean jackshit because it made him cruel rather than kind.
But, hey, Tyrant could be fun at times. The last paragraph was a hoot.
jaironside's review
I know I took a bit longer with this one, but it's out now! No more waiting! ;)
More...