tags: historical, mystery, Richard III
⭐⭐
From Wikipedia
Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant is feeling bored while confined to bed in hospital with a broken leg. Marta Hallard, an actress friend of his, suggests he should amuse himself by researching a historical mystery. She brings him some pictures of historical characters, aware of Grant's interest in human faces.
He becomes intrigued by a portrait of King Richard III. He prides himself on being able to read a person's character from his appearance, and King Richard seems to him a gentle, kind and wise man. Why is everyone so sure that he was a cruel murderer?
With the help of other friends and acquaintances, Grant investigates Richard's life and the case of the Princes in the Tower, testing out his theories on the doctors and nurses who attend to him. Grant spends weeks pondering historical information and documents with the help of Brent Carradine, a likable young American researcher working in the British Museum.
Using his detective's logic, he comes to the conclusion that the claim of Richard being a murderer is a fabrication of Tudor propaganda, as is the popular image of the King as a monstrous hunchback.I have never been interested in reading any books written by Josephine Tey until now because all the new mystery/crime novels are garbage. Well, the Daughter of Time published in 1951 is almost as nonsense as the current novels coming from the U.K. In 1990 it was voted number one in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list compiled by the British Crime Writers' Association. In 1995 it was voted number four in The Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list compiled by the Mystery Writers of America.
One of the reasons for their rating is they think it is not formulaic compared with popular mystery novels written by prominent authors. IMHO, mystery novels written by Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers, and Ellis Peters are hardly formulaic and I consider these writers way better than Josephine Tey.
I am scratching my head. Really. The very short book at 200 pages is one of the most boring crime/mystery fiction I ever read. I don't give a rodent's behind about the Wars of The Roses saga and it is a forgone conclusion that the inspector will declare Richard III innocent of suffocating his nephews to death just by looking at the portrait. Ah, alrighty then.🙄
I find Grant a pompous condescending character mocking Thomas More calling him a gazillion times "the sainted" More regardless of him knowing More was just a scribe for the enemy of Richard III and was just 5 years old when the "murders" happened. A young American started helping him gather information from several historical publications available from the British Museum. Their back and forth read like they came straight out of a textbook. The author did not bother to give these 2 characters distinct and different voices and personalities. They sound alike - wooden, cardboardy, and extremely borrrring. The 200 pages seem like a tome because it failed to make me involved in the mystery. Sheesh.
2 stars because I agree with some of her ideas specially the false stories created by unscrupulous politicians helped by their lapdog journalists. Their evil partnership was present since the dawn of time and hasn't changed.
Read if you must but I'm warning you it will make you snooze. Just watch those Wars of the Roses TV series. Maybe not accurate, but so is this book.
