How to use this Page

Beaufrand, Mary Jane. 2008. Primavera.

The Italian Renaissance. Two powerful families are about to feud--the Medici and the Pazzi--and our heroine, Lorenza, nicknamed Flora, is soon to be caught in the middle. Power. Wealth. Prestige. That's what it comes down to for most of the men and women in both families. Flora, on the other hand is different. Perhaps it is those differences which serve to her advantage when the power struggle plays out disastrously for her family. She, in fact, saves the life of her family's enemy. But while this act of kindness may protect her life--in the moment--her family--her entire family is at risk. When the Medici's strike back, everything she's known, everything she's loved (as well as a few things she's hated) will be stripped away. Does Flora have the strength, the courage to begin life anew? Is she as strong as her grandmother believes? Does she have anything to live for after all?

I loved this book. I did. The setting was remarkable. Okay, maybe that's the wrong word. For me, I found the setting fascinating. I found it rich and deep and lustrous. I'm not that familiar with it generally speaking, and the details swept me away. Maybe that won't be the case for other readers. But for me it was one of those books that was in the right place and the right time to completely capture my attention. Flora is a well-drawn character. She's strong. She's resourceful. She's complex. I was completely taken in by her and her world.

This is Mary Jane Beaufrand's first book.

The story is inspired by Botticelli's masterpiece La Primavera.

Another review of the novel.
Yet another review of the novel.

Burney, Fanny. 1796. Camilla.

The historian of human life finds less of difficulty and of intricacy to develop, in its accidents and adventures, than the investigator of the human heart in its feelings and its changes. In vain may Fortune wave her many-coloured banner, alternately regaling and dismaying, with hues that seem glowing with all the creation's felicities, or with tints that appear stained with ingredients of unmixt horrors; her most rapid vicissitudes, her most unassimilating eccentricities, are mocked, laughed at, and distanced by the wilder wonders of the Heart of man; that amazing assemblage of all possible contrarieties, in which one thing alone is steady--the perverseness of spirit which grafts desire on what is denied. Its qualities are indefinable, its resources unfathomable, its weaknesses indefensible. In our neighbors we cannot judge, in ourselves we dare not trust it. We lose ere we learn to appreciate, and ere we can comprehend it we must be born again. Its capacity o'er-leaps all limit, while its futility includes every absurdity. It lives its own surprise--it ceases to beat--and the void is inscrutable! In one grand and general view, who can display such a portrait? Fairly, however faintly, to delineate some of its features, is the sole and discriminate province of the pen which would trace nature, yet blot out personality.

Repose is not more welcome to the worn and to the aged, to the sick and to the unhappy, than danger, difficulty, and toil to the young and adventurous. Danger they encounter but as the forerunner of success; difficulty as the spur of ingenuity; and toil, as the herald of honour. The experience which teaches the lesson of truth, and the blessings of tranquility, comes not in the shape of warning nor of wisdom; from such they turn aside, defying or disbelieving. 'Tis in the bitterness of personal proof alone, in suffering and in feeling, in erring and repenting, that experience comes home with conviction, or impresses to any use.

The opening sentences of the book along with the opening sentences of chapter one.

Long story short:
Paragraph one: This is a story about the complexity (and some could argue the depravity) of the human heart. The good, the bad, the ugly.
Paragraph two: Some things you've got to learn the hard way. Life itself teaches and often in such a way that mere lectures cannot.

What can I say about Camilla? Really? I know so few people that would have the courage and the will to persevere through 956 pages. (Included in the page count of course are the introduction and bibliography and footnotes). But even if the length didn't throw you, the opening sentences might. The novel is both delightfully pleasant and sluggishly dull.

Short description: Camilla loves Edgar. Edgar loves Camilla. Edgar's stupidity and Camilla's naivety keep the two apart for at least to eight hundred pages.

The setting: Several locales both in town and country in England (18th century)
The characters: Too many to count. There are dozens and dozens of characters to keep track of. At least a dozen of great importance.

Camilla, Lavinia, Eugenia are three sisters. Camilla and Eugenia having the larger roles. Lionel is their brother. Indiana Lynmore is their cousin. Her brother is Clermont. Miss Margland is largely the companion/governess of Indiana. Dr. Orkborne is the tutor of Eugenia. Sir Hugh Tyrold is the uncle to Camilla, Lavinia, Eugenia, and Indiana, and Clermont Lynmore. Mr. and Mrs. Tyrold are the parents of Camilla, Lavinia, Eugenia, and Lionel. Edgar Mandlebert is the ward of Sir Hugh. He is the 'hero' of the book, I suppose. And those are just the characters who appear most readily throughout the novel. That's excluding friends, recurring acquaintances, and pursuing (or wooing) suitors.

The plot: Thinly drawn out and mostly ill-paced.

The writing: Difficult to understand at times because it is so roundabout. But it's not impossible to understand. You just can't breeze through it quickly.

The story enough in its basics is pleasant enough. But the fact that it takes so very very very long for the story to begin to happen would discourage all but the most determined from reading on through it all. The last two hundred pages of the novel have a completely different pace than the preceding seven hundred.

Most of the novel could be condensed to one or two scenes:

Imagine Camilla in the garden, flower in hand:
He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me. I love him so. If only I knew how he felt about me?

Imagine Edgar, also alone, deep in thought.
I wonder if I love her. Do I really love her? Is she worthy of me? Is she what I want in a wife? I'm sure I love her. But what if I don't really love her. What if I just think I love her? I better wait and see if I really truly love her. I won't let her know that I even like her. That's what I'll do. I'll pretend to not love her. Then I'll give her lecture after lecture after lecture on how to behave. If she obeys my advice, then maybe that's proof she's worthy of me. Maybe. I just don't know. Do I love her?

It doesn't help matters at all, that both Edgar and Camilla have various older-and-wiser adults counseling them on love and marriage and courtship. Their advice often conflicts with the natural instincts of the two would-be-lovers. And because they choose to listen to other people instead of following their own hearts and minds, their story isn't a nice and lovely one told in two or three hundred pages. It's a monstrously long novel showcasing their stupidity.

It's not just a love story though. It displays the times. Social hierarchies. Social classes. Economics. And like Jane Austen (Burney was a decade or so before Austen's time), Burney writes of the marriage mart. Women and men in pursuit of advantageous matches. The conflict between making marriage a matter of the pocket-book and a matter of the heart.

Other than the fact that it was a bit slow at times, a bit melodramatic at times, a bit verbose when less would have been more, it was an enjoyable enough novel. Oddly enough, I didn't dislike the time spent reading it. It may have been slow and steady, but it wasn't badly written. It's just not a modern-enough book to suit today's taste. Camilla is naive and foolish and hesitant when she should be bold and bold when she should be hesitant. She defies when she should obey, and obeys when she should defy.

Historical Fiction Reading Challenge
host: Reading, Writing, and Ranting
dates: 1 April to 1 October
books required: 6




Here is my list to choose from. Note: I'm only aiming for 6-8. I just like options.

Evelina by Fanny Burney
Camilla by Fanny Burney
Cecilia by Fanny Burney
North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell
Gone With The Wind by Margaret Mitchell
A Company of Swans by Eva Ibbotson
A Countess Below Stairs by Eva Ibbotson
Christy by Catherine Marshall
Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery
Anne of Avonlea by L.M. Montgomery
Anne of the Island by L.M. Montgomery
Anne of Windy Poplars by L.M. Montgomery
Anne’s House of Dreams by L.M. Montgomery
Anne of Ingleside by L.M. Montgomery
Rainbow Valley by L.M. Montgomery
Rilla of Ingleside by L.M. Montgomery
Savannah by Eugenia Price
To See Your Face Again by Eugenia Price
Before the Darkness Falls by Eugenia Price
Stranger in Savannah by Eugenia Price
Bright Captivity by Eugenia Price
Where Shadows Go by Eugenia Price
Beauty in the Ashes by Eugenia Price
Maria by Eugenia Price
Margaret's Story by Eugenia Price
Don Juan McQueen by Eugenia Price
The Beloved Invader by Eugenia Price
New Moon Rising by Eugenia Price
Lighthouse by Eugenia Price
The Hawk that Dare Not Hunt By Day by Scott O'Dell

Hmmm.

The blog lists the Children's Book Council under "support." Do you think that means Titlepage.tv will feature a few children's and YA authors in their online "passionate conversations about books"?

If they do, I hope it's later on, when the show has worked out its kinks. Look at this detailed critique of the first episode...

I'm not much of an intrepid reporter, so I hope Fuse 8 is on this. Or maybe Colleen, since she writes for Bookslut, and they're also listed on the blogroll. Betsy, Colleen, any idea why the CBC is sponsoring this? Bring us the scoop!

In the meantime, if you need a really superb interview, the old-fashioned, written way: Anita Loughrey (via cynsations) talks to Leonard Marcus, one of my heroes. I love this man, and I love him more after this interview.

How should good web video look? Nobody knows. The standards are being invented as we speak.  

Over at PBS's Idea Lab, Mark Glaser is exploring that conundrum, analyzing the work of Reuter's reporters who do multimedia reporting with a backpack full of fancy portable technology.

His analysis shows some flaws in the new program, but gives a couple helpful hints that multimedia journalists can follow as they improve their work. Check it out:

"The news service has given reporters a Mobile Journalism Toolkit, including a Nokia N95, a fold-up keyboard and directional microphones. The idea is that reporters could do video, photo, audio and text reports without having to use a laptop ... But if you peruse Reuters' special website to see the early reports from Reuters mojos, they are uneven, with blurry photos and choppy videos with poor sound quality."

While the jumpy, glossy camera lens looks odd on the convention floor, I think it looks pretty good in the heat of an angry toy store protest. Even though the form is still evolving, I tell my students that they should all be looking for jobs like this--blending print, video, and online publishing.

The future journalist will be a multi-tasking crazy person, and we have to start learning these skills. Don't waste all your time worrying about quality. Just start reporting (like Ed Champion and his new experiment), and figure it out as you go.

Donald Ritchie, author of Reporting from Washington: The History of the Washington Press Corps, Our Constitution, and The Congress of the United States: A Student Companion, has been Associate Historian of the United States Senate for more than three decades. This past weekend Ritchie spoke at the AEJMC conference (Association of Educators of Journalism and Mass Communications), and has been kind enough to share his opening remarks with us.  His comments make me wonder what will follow the internet.  Any thoughts?

The Internet as a medium for news reporting is still in its foundling stage, and we can only imagine how it will develop over the long run, or what its intended and unintended consequences might be. A past technology, however, offers some historical clues about its trajectory. Now as obsolete as smoke signals, the telegraph provided the first means of electronic communications and facilitated the news industry for a century and a half. Beyond providing speed, the telegraph changed the way news was reported and the definition of legitimate news reporting. (more…)

Share This