George Martin and Maurice Druon

[Daeron the Daring]

So It's only been a few hours since I finished the fourth book from Maurice Druon's The Accursed Kings, The Royal Succession, and I gotta admit, I haven't felt this amount of a shock due to a book since I finished the entire series of The Three Muskeeters, with the book Bragellone Vicomté (or Ten Years Later...).  

The obvious reason I ended up reading it is what George told about this series, that "This is the original GoT". And how true it is. After 4 books I read about things I could not imagine being possible in any case. I couldn't imagine so much cruelty and disaster happening in real life in such a shorth time period. It did, tho, the author is so loyal to what really might have happened that at one point I tought I'm reading a bad joke, and I had to look up what really happened. Historical sources back up my guy Maurice with almost everything. Turns out it he's no Jokser. What I really like about it is that I basically knew about a lot of deaths that's gonna happen due to my general knowledge of history, but the book manages to amaze me anyway. What's even more hilarious? The book literally tells you at some point: "yea, so, basically he and he and she and that fourth guy as well will be dead in a month or ten years, but let's stick to our story for now", and then it makes me lose my mind when that shit happens anyway. I feel like it's nowhere over, but I already read 4 of the 7 books. And what George has to do with all this? Basically, a lot. He's got so many inspiration from this book. (no mockery of his work here. The only similar thing is the type of chsracters and story it presents. They sell themselves a pretty different way) Sometimes I felt like I'm reading not only about one of his known character, but also one of his known story as well that I've read once. 

Still, I can't figure things out. But I've got the impression it might help me understand his books better and figure out his ending, that's why I tought I'm gonna recommend it in the General Subforum (I hope this is where this topic belongs). 

The reason I'm not gonna make comparisons is that I haven't finished yet, but this story has a good-guy Petyr Baelish, I can tell you that much. 

[Lord Varys]

Druon and Costain are the guys from which George drew a lot of stuff, at times down to direct plots and phrases. It has been some time that I read the stuff, but the crypts of Winterfell are the burial grounds of the French kings at St. Denis, right down to the comparison that the guys know where they will eventually end up. The weirdo notion that bastards grow up quicker and stuff is also drawn from Druon, something that you do not really find in medieval literature.

The really glaring thing is that the entire Margaery trial is taken from the Isle of Nesle affair, and the Jon Snow/Aegon plot is both inspired by the story of King Jean as well as the folks pretending to be Plantagenet princes in the reign of Henry VII.

In FaB you also have a lot of Druon with the Shepherd basically mimicking the curses of Jacques de Molay.

[SeanF]

I’d say Tywin and Cersei are pretty much Philip the Fair and his daughter, Isabella.  Robert of Artois seems to combine the characteristics of King Robert and Littlefinger.

[Lord Browndodd]

Seeing this topic has prompted me to make a start with this and do something to correct my woeful knowledge of French medieval history.  One chapter in, and it's already surprising me a bit - growing up in Wallingford as I did I'm familiar with the story of Isabella of France, but had no idea she (tried to/succeeded in - not sure where it is going yet) take out her French in-laws as well as her English husband.  Wallingford Castle was the Harrenhal of fourteenth-century England, by the way - Piers Gaveston won a big tournament there so Edward II conferred the castle on him, and as the century twisted and turned, it ended up with Thomas of Lancaster, the Despensers, and Roger Mortimer, all of whom died screaming as GRRM might put it.

Not sure how easy it is to get hold of, but the BBC adaptation of Robert Graves' "I, Claudius" is something else that's full of plots and phrases that GRRM has made use of (the original novels are great too; the TV adaptation manages to ditch much of the content but stay faithful to both plot and character, and GRRM was pretty definitely inspired by the latter).

[SeanF]

35 minutes ago, Lord Browndodd said:

Seeing this topic has prompted me to make a start with this and do something to correct my woeful knowledge of French medieval history.  One chapter in, and it's already surprising me a bit - growing up in Wallingford as I did I'm familiar with the story of Isabella of France, but had no idea she (tried to/succeeded in - not sure where it is going yet) take out her French in-laws as well as her English husband.  Wallingford Castle was the Harrenhal of fourteenth-century England, by the way - Piers Gaveston won a big tournament there so Edward II conferred the castle on him, and as the century twisted and turned, it ended up with Thomas of Lancaster, the Despensers, and Roger Mortimer, all of whom died screaming as GRRM might put it.

Not sure how easy it is to get hold of, but the BBC adaptation of Robert Graves' "I, Claudius" is something else that's full of plots and phrases that GRRM has made use of (the original novels are great too; the TV adaptation manages to ditch much of the content but stay faithful to both plot and character, and GRRM was pretty definitely inspired by the latter).

Much of the historiography surrounding Edward II and Isabella is dreadful.  Unfortunately, Druon falls for it hook, line and sinker.  To Alison Weir, Isabella is feminist heroine;  to Derek Jarman, Edward was the gay martyr.  Druon depicts Edward as a pathetic, mincing, weeping faggot, Isabella as a vampiric, castrating harpy. 
 

Kathryn Warner’s Edward II Blogspot describes the real Edward and Isabella.

[Lord Browndodd]

11 hours ago, SeanF said:

Much of the historiography surrounding Edward II and Isabella is dreadful.  Unfortunately, Druon falls for it hook, line and sinker.  To Alison Weir, Isabella is feminist heroine;  to Derek Jarman, Edward was the gay martyr.  Druon depicts Edward as a pathetic, mincing, weeping faggot, Isabella as a vampiric, castrating harpy. 
 

Kathryn Warner’s Edward II Blogspot describes the real Edward and Isabella.

Hi Sean - really impressive blog that.  Thanks for recommending it!

[Daeron the Daring]

On 7/27/2021 at 12:16 AM, SeanF said:

Druon depicts Edward as a pathetic, mincing, weeping faggot, Isabella as a vampiric, castrating harpy. 

On 7/26/2021 at 11:33 PM, Lord Browndodd said:

Seeing this topic has prompted me to make a start with this and do something to correct my woeful knowledge of French medieval history.  One chapter in, and it's already surprising me a bit - growing up in Wallingford as I did I'm familiar with the story of Isabella of France, but had no idea she (tried to/succeeded in - not sure where it is going yet) take out her French in-laws as well as her English husband.  Wallingford Castle was the Harrenhal of fourteenth-century England, by the way - Piers Gaveston won a big tournament there so Edward II conferred the castle on him, and as the century twisted and turned, it ended up with Thomas of Lancaster, the Despensers, and Roger Mortimer, all of whom died screaming as GRRM might put it.

Not sure how easy it is to get hold of, but the BBC adaptation of Robert Graves' "I, Claudius" is something else that's full of plots and phrases that GRRM has made use of (the original novels are great too; the TV adaptation manages to ditch much of the content but stay faithful to both plot and character, and GRRM was pretty definitely inspired by the latter).

As @SeanF said, Druon really likes depicting things in noone's favor. He pretty much wants you to be unable to decide who you favor as the story goes. That, however doesn't necesarilly has to influence you. Druon likes to show you everyone surrounded by the same level of infection, but expresses that this is only his opinion as well. 

Quote

This was meant to be the spoiler tab, but it's the one inside of it. 

Spoiler

For example, he likes depicting the dead as better persons than what he made of them while they were alive. Even if he depicted Louis X as he did, his death was the first thing that brang some tears into my eyes. I felt sorry for the man who was willing to change, even if Druon's opinion was that he was unable to do so. IRL Louis X wasn't as horrible and incompetent as Druon says, and even if I only did my research after his death in the books, I realised how he intentinally made him worse. Of course he is called the Quarrelsome, that tells that much only. It isn't noted that he was incompetent, and Druon still tried to portray him that way, at least at the beginning of his reign and during his father's. Joffrey is based on him partially, altough almost every character from ASOIAF IS based on 2-3 characters of this novel series. 

 

Druon wants you to regret siding whit anyone in this book, just as he makes you regret not siding with someone in the past, except for a very few. That applies on Edward II and Isabella of France as well. You'll se, but try creating your own opinion of everyone. 

What really got me at first is how he made me change my opinion (altough I learned how to evade these tricks by now, reading the sixth book, and I am a little proud of that as well), how easily he went trough major historical events, and left behind his greatest characters. And of course, how my medieval french historical knowledge (which I consider being above average) didn't ruin a single moment. Not the ones I knew will come, nor the ones I didn't know about. 

In my opinion he's doing a better job at storytelling than George, but at the same time George is better at leaving behind his own opinion, having no narrator. 

[Daeron the Daring]

On 7/27/2021 at 12:16 AM, SeanF said:

Much of the historiography surrounding Edward II and Isabella is dreadful.  Unfortunately, Druon falls for it hook, line and sinker.

I'm not sure yet if that's intentional or not from him. I'd like to think it is, and he intentinally portrays everyone a little darker so that his story will be more confusing to our own moral compass. I'd like to think of it that way, altough I might be wrong. What makes me read the books is to see how the tables turn, and how that brings out what's inside people. 

Spoiler

 Spoilers, if someone hasn't guessed!!

As an example, to get to know how Philip the Tall protected his mother-in-law from the accusations that were actually true, and how he gained power is to make you have a bittersweet feeling fowards him at best. The fact that Louis X was poisioned by Mahaut, and that this woman's attempt to murder John I cost us not only the death of Guccio's son but Queen Clementzia's bad fate and her son's as well makes you want to hate Philip as well. Yet, I can't. But at the same time I can't forgive Bouville for his stupidness, that helped Mahaut, altough not as much as King Philip later on.

 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

As @SeanF said, Druon really likes depicting things in noone's favor. He pretty much wants you to be unable to decide who you favor as the story goes. That, however doesn't necesarilly has to influence you. Druon likes to show you everyone surrounded by the same level of infection, but expresses that this is only his opinion as well. 

Druon wants you to regret siding whit anyone in this book, just as he makes you regret not siding with someone in the past, except for a very few. That applies on Edward II and Isabella of France as well. You'll se, but try creating your own opinion of everyone. 

What really got me at first is how he made me change my opinion (altough I learned how to evade these tricks by now, reading the sixth book, and I am a little proud of that as well), how easily he went trough major historical events, and left behind his greatest characters. And of course, how my medieval french historical knowledge (which I consider being above average) didn't ruin a single moment. Not the ones I knew will come, nor the ones I didn't know about. 

In my opinion he's doing a better job at storytelling than George, but at the same time George is better at leaving behind his own opinion, having no narrator. 

He loves Robert d'Artois, even if he doesn't gloss over his crimes.  At the end of Book 6, he goes so far as to describe him as his favourite character. 

As for Edward II, I think his views are just period-typical for the 1950's.  Edward's homosexuality is supposedly common knowledge in the courts of Europe, a subject of constant ridicule and contempt, and Edward himself is portrayed as a spineless worm.  It's entirely natural that Isabella should fall for a true manly man, Roger Mortimer, rather than the horrid pervert she is married to.

[Daeron the Daring]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

He loves Robert d'Artois, even if he doesn't gloss over his crimes.  At the end of Book 6, he goes so far as to describe him as his favourite character.

That's what I like in it. He doesn't portray anyone a better person than what they've been. Only worse, if possible. Spoiler:

Despite learning how many horrible things he did, I did not stop liking the character, nor when he sided with the people I did not like. I also didn't need Druon's opinion to like the character of Louis X, despite him mocking the king whenever he just could. The ssme goes for Philip V to me. It's not his opinion that made me like Louis X (altough he was speaking of him generously after his death, I already liked him), nor did mocking Philip V after his death changed my positive opinion of him. 

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

As for Edward II, I think his views are just period-typical for the 1950's.  Edward's homosexuality is supposedly common knowledge in the courts of Europe, a subject of constant ridicule and contempt, and Edward himself is portrayed as a spineless worm.  It's entirely natural that Isabella should fall for a true manly man, Roger Mortimer, rather than the horrid pervert she is married to.

Again spoilers: I don't know. The narrator pretty much tells us (along with Queen Isabelle) that she really loved him until he made her hate him. This is shown at the very beginning of The Iron King (when Robert meets her), just as it is shown when Isabelle doesn't want to arrange his death at first. At this point the narrator as well expresses how Isabelle might have felt, and why she doesn't feel the same anymore, and is hardly agreeing on murdering her husband. To be honest, I've seen worse portrayals in this novel series than Edward II's, who I don't think deserved it. I see no sign of homophobia here, altough I'm currently reading the sixth book, when he's been dead for a time now. I rather think (altough I have no reason to believe it) that he wants me to regret liking Queen Isabelle and her faction.

Edit.: Guess I was right.