This book is so, SO funny! I don't know that it's hyper-historically correct, but it's a wonderful read. It's very upbeat, and you cheer for Catherine. She fights back!
Maura (maura853) -
Sparky, spunky heroine who is a wonderful guide to late 13th Century life in England (warts and all) for 11/12 year olds.
First of all, just to be clear -- in its characterisations, Catherine, Called Birdy is not strictly, rigorously historically accurate. "Teenagers," as we understand them, are a relatively recent invention. Up until 70 or so years ago, childhood ended abruptly, and early, in marriage, family responsibilities, crushing, endless labour and, all too often, death. (DID YOU KNOW that, on the Titanic, the officers in charge of the lifeboats tried to turn away 12 year old boys? Because they were "not children" ... )
So for anyone who grumbles that the diary of Catherine of Stonebridge, daughter of Sir Rollo and Lady Aislinn, doesn't represent a perfectly accurate representation of the attitudes and behaviour of a 13 year old high status girl in the Year of Our Lord 1290, I can only say, channeling my inner Joe E. Brown -- "Well, nobody's perfect!"
Please bear in mind that I am someone who has, literally, thrown so-called historical novels across the room when I come across particularly glaring and egregious anachronisms (I'm lookin' at you, "The Western Wind," and I never want to look at you again, "The Familiars" ...)
But I loved this. First, because I think Cushman understands her target audience -- which is not me. (I bought this, having seen reviews of the recent movie based on the book, for my soon-to-be 10 year old history-mad granddaughter. I'll probably wait a year or so to give it to her, but I think she'll love it.) Cushman is quoted, in the cover blurbs, as saying "she wanted to know what life was like for ordinary people ..." For an 11/12 year old, I think you can refine that to say "I want to know what life would have been like for ME." And that's what Catherine is -- a late 20th/early 21st Century kid, transported to a world of mud and blood and funky smells, and a future strictly defined by the hierarchies of her birth. Bad food, and no HBO. It's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" -- without the knock on the head.
Would anyone in 1290 (anywhere, not just England) have been baffled by our ring-fencing and privileging of human beings between the ages of approx 12 and 19? Of course. But would they have recognized the child struggling to make sense of her world -- warring with hormones, struggling to find her place? I think that's timeless. I bet the early hominid Lucy, crossing the African savannah about 3.2 million years old, looked at her mum and dad and rolled her eyes at how lame they were, and COULD THEY BE more embarrassing? (Ok, maybe that's a stretch ...)
But I think in Birdy, Cushman has a achieved an emotional truth that trumps strict historical accuracy -- and she's created a wonderful portal to the medieval period for young readers ...
First of all, just to be clear -- in its characterisations, Catherine, Called Birdy is not strictly, rigorously historically accurate. "Teenagers," as we understand them, are a relatively recent invention. Up until 70 or so years ago, childhood ended abruptly, and early, in marriage, family responsibilities, crushing, endless labour and, all too often, death. (DID YOU KNOW that, on the Titanic, the officers in charge of the lifeboats tried to turn away 12 year old boys? Because they were "not children" ... )
So for anyone who grumbles that the diary of Catherine of Stonebridge, daughter of Sir Rollo and Lady Aislinn, doesn't represent a perfectly accurate representation of the attitudes and behaviour of a 13 year old high status girl in the Year of Our Lord 1290, I can only say, channeling my inner Joe E. Brown -- "Well, nobody's perfect!"
Please bear in mind that I am someone who has, literally, thrown so-called historical novels across the room when I come across particularly glaring and egregious anachronisms (I'm lookin' at you, "The Western Wind," and I never want to look at you again, "The Familiars" ...)
But I loved this. First, because I think Cushman understands her target audience -- which is not me. (I bought this, having seen reviews of the recent movie based on the book, for my soon-to-be 10 year old history-mad granddaughter. I'll probably wait a year or so to give it to her, but I think she'll love it.) Cushman is quoted, in the cover blurbs, as saying "she wanted to know what life was like for ordinary people ..." For an 11/12 year old, I think you can refine that to say "I want to know what life would have been like for ME." And that's what Catherine is -- a late 20th/early 21st Century kid, transported to a world of mud and blood and funky smells, and a future strictly defined by the hierarchies of her birth. Bad food, and no HBO. It's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" -- without the knock on the head.
Would anyone in 1290 (anywhere, not just England) have been baffled by our ring-fencing and privileging of human beings between the ages of approx 12 and 19? Of course. But would they have recognized the child struggling to make sense of her world -- warring with hormones, struggling to find her place? I think that's timeless. I bet the early hominid Lucy, crossing the African savannah about 3.2 million years old, looked at her mum and dad and rolled her eyes at how lame they were, and COULD THEY BE more embarrassing? (Ok, maybe that's a stretch ...)
But I think in Birdy, Cushman has a achieved an emotional truth that trumps strict historical accuracy -- and she's created a wonderful portal to the medieval period for young readers ...
