What Makes it Historical and Not Fiction

This week, Salem, MA comes up a lot in our book (which is being released on SEPTEMBER 2!!  So you're getting an early review of this book!!!!)  And, while our book this week isn't technically historical fiction, it does kind of have that feel and talk a lot about the Salem witch trials.

So what is that fine lines between a historical book and a historical fiction book?

A really good example of historical fiction is Phillipa Gregory.  She writes nothing but historical fiction.  Probably one of her most famous is The Other Boleyn Girl.  We've also reviewed The Queen's Fool.

These books are all based on historical events, mostly the Tudor family.  Elizabeth the first (appearing in The Queen's Fool) and Mary and Anne Boleyn, along with Henry VIII, who were in The Other Boleyn Girl, were all real people.  And a lot of the characters they portrayed in these books were accurate.  The Boleyn sisters were very prominent and lovers of Henry VIII.  Anne Boleyn did eventually become his wife.  Gregory did a lot of research about the time period and their lives and incorporated all of that into her books.

However, the relationship that Mary has with Anne is entirely fabricated by Gregory (might have existed, no one really knows.)  She created the conversations, the situations, all of the non-major events (and even some of the major ones.)  The books are, largely, fictional ones and should be treated as such, despite the fact that they're based on people that actually existed.

This book is called Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne by David Starkey.  It's a non-fiction book (a very good one at that) all about how Elizabeth I grew up.  It tells about how she was continually disowned and then readopted by her father.  She was in his favor and then dismissed, depending on his wife and his mood.  One second she was an heir to the throne and then the next second she wasn't.

Starkey tells us all about Elizabeth's life up until she claims the throne of England on Nov. 17, 1533 (PS I didn't even have to look that up.)  He tells us a story, just like Gregory does, the difference is, his story is nothing but fact.  There are footnotes and end notes telling us exactly where his information comes from.  He tells us when he's speculating and that it might be true, and it might not be true, but that there's no real way to tell, XYZ are just the reasons he thinks they are.

At the end of the day, the biggest difference between between the two genre is the, well, fiction.  Starkey can't tell us anything but the true, while Gregory is allowed a little more embellishment.  But, they both tell a good story.

Review Me Twice: King Richard II by William Shakespeare

Reading about history - history I'm not well-versed in, anyway - and reading Shakespearean English: two things I'm not usually terribly excited to do. That did not change over the course of reading this play, but I didn't hate it.

Whenever I read something by Shakespeare, I either read about the history behind it - like with this one - or I read a detailed plot summary. It sounds like cheating, but really, it's allowing me to pay closer attention to the language than to the details of the plot (because I already know them). Remember what I said about translating while reading when we discussed Le Petit Prince last month? Reading Shakespeare is a lot like translating, unless you get one of those versions that's "translated" for you (and therefore isn't in the right meter, doesn't rhyme, and is basically useless). So it's helpful to know the story outline in advance, so you can be sure of what's happening. (Honestly, Cassy messaged me at one point to tell me she knew this guy had just died, but the manner in which he died was uncertain. Those are the kinds of problems you run into with Shakespeare sometimes.)

A play that starts with two guys having a financial dispute before the king doesn't seem like it's going to get much better... but then they challenge each other to a duel, and off we go! Of course, it takes an age and a half to get into the tournament, but then things get a little more interesting, and... well, I told you the ending yesterday, since it's based in history.

So all in all, I liked it, but it's not a brisk and simple read by any means. But who expects Shakespeare to be that?

I was discussing this book with Alex the other day and talking about how I had to catch up on the books for the blog.  My exact words to her were, "Hopefully, I'll breeze right through Richard II."

I should know that one never breezes through Shakespeare, but it didn't take me LONG.  The thing with Shakespeare is, that even after four years of high school, four MORE years of college (where I majored in English) and another five years of reading for my own personal enjoyment, Shakespeare never got easier to swallow over the years.

Did I dislike the play?  Well, no, because we all know my obsession over English history (and this beings the Tudor reign.)  It was enjoyable, but a lot of times, I miss what's going on.  I often read summaries or at least the history behind it so I know I didn't miss any important plot points.

And, you know, Shakespeare is one of the most famous writers ever for a reason.

"Then thus I turn me from my country's light

To dwell in solemn shakes of endless night."

I mean, COME ON!!  Who can write like that anymore?  It's this awesomely beautiful rhyming couplet about how a guy is super depressed that he's being banished from his country.

Over all, I enjoyed the play, but it is Shakespeare, so it's not exactly light reading.

Who Was King Richard II?

King Richard II of England is, obviously, the king central to the plot of Shakespeare's King Richard II, much like how King Henry V showed up in King Henry V and there were a couple of characters named Romeo and Juliet in Romeo and Juliet. Funny how that works out.

But who was King Richard II? Unlike Romeo and Juliet, he was a real guy, and I'm going to tell you about him.

Richard was born in 1367. He was the son of Edward, the Black Prince. Edward was the first Prince of Wales to never become king, as he died only a year before his father.

You may also remember him as this guy,
from A Knight's Tale

So, Richard's grandfather (Edward III) passed the throne directly to Richard, because of the deaths of Edward the Black Prince (Richard's father) and Richard's older brother (Edward of Angouleme, at the age of four). Richard's coronation was July 16, 1377, when he was ten years old.

His first major challenge as king came in 1381, in the form of the Peasants' Revolt (also known as Wat Tyler's Rebellion). It was mainly caused by the many problems that arose from the Black Death in the 1340s, high taxes caused by the Hundred Years' War, and issues with the local leadership in London. Richard successfully met with rebels and defused the tensions, coming out on top. (For fun, go ask the nearest 14-year-old when they last saved a country from a peasant uprising.)

In 1386, the threat of a French invasion grew, and - to be succinct - Parliament dealt with the situation. Richard was upset by their actions, because it stepped on the toes of his royal prerogative (which he put a lot of store in). This is just a humble book review blog, so I won't outline the finer points, but just pretend it was like a bunch of high school girls and their drama over who gets to decide whose house the sleepover will be at... except with more bloodshed and political discourse.

"He's so pathetic. Let me tell you something about King Richard II. We were best friends in middle school. I know, right? It's so embarrassing. I don't even... Whatever. So then in eighth grade, I started letting John of Gaunt rule, who was totally gorgeous but then he moved to Indiana, and Richard was like, weirdly jealous of him. Like, if I would blow him off to hang out with the Lords Appellant, he'd be like, 'Why didn't you call me back?' And I'd be like, 'Why are you so obsessed with me?' So then, for my birthday party, which was an all-Parliament pool party, I was like, 'Richard, I can't invite you, because you're the king.' I mean I couldn't have a king at my party. There were gonna be members of Parliament there. I mean, right? He was a king. So then his mom called my mom and started yelling at her, it was so retarded. And then he dropped out of the throne because no one would talk to him, and he came back a few years later to reclaim the throne, and he was totally weird, and now I guess he's on crack."

The Lords Appellant (great band name?) took over control of the government, but - long story short - Richard took it back by 1389. For eight years, he did a good job, took care of business, and led peacefully. But in 1397, his apparently bottled rage at the Lords Appellant exploded, and he took revenge on them, executing or exiling most of them.

"Frenemies forever!"

This is where Shakespeare jumps in to tell the story in his play (so, you know... spoiler alerts, to the extent that there can even be spoilers for literature which has been around for centuries and is referenced just... everywhere) which covers the last two years of Richard's reign (1399-1400), which historians refer to as Richard's tyranny.

When John of Gaunt (Richard's highly influential uncle and adviser since before his reign began) died, Richard disinherited the previously exiled Henry of Bolingbroke, John of Gaunt's son. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with forces that quickly grew in number, with the intention to claim the throne for himself. Anticlimactically, Henry won and deposed Richard, who died in captivity the next year (murder being the likely cause).

Richard gets a bit of a bad rap, because he had two really bad years where he wanted basically everyone dead, and those are the two years Shakespeare immortalized in literature. But hey, Richard was a big fan of the arts and cultivating the cultural image of royalty, so he probably wouldn't have been too upset, I guess. His reign was, in fact, the period of time where English became a literary language, making Shakespeare's popularity possible in the first place. (Richard's time was the same as Geoffery Chaucer's time, if that's any indication.)

He also appeared in A Knight's Tale.
Someone please just tell me I'm not the only one who LOVES THIS MOVIE.

Anyway, Henry of Bolingbroke became Henry IV, which you may realize is the title of two of Shakespeare's plays (Parts 1 and 2). That's because King Richard II was the first of a tetralogy (like a trilogy... but with four parts), which ends with Henry V, who is - as you may have guessed - Henry IV's successor.

Painted Eggs

Since we're reading a book about painted eggs this week, I figured I should probably give you a clue as to what those painted eggs are and the tradition behind them.

Egg painting goes back a LONG time (think pagans) and, as usual, Christianity adopted the idea into their religion (because they wanted to convert a ton of people, so they kept a lot of pagan traditions.  It's why Christmas is in December as opposed to April, when Jesus was really born.  It's because Christmas coincides with the winter solstice.)

To this day, most nationalities have their version of the "painted egg" (don't YOU decorate your eggs at Easter?)  Slavic nations are no different, painting eggs beautiful colors for the Easter season.

For these particular eggs, they don't really paint so much as they "write" on the eggs.  A stylus is taken, dipped in hot wax and then the wax is drawn or "written" on the eggs to form a design.  Then, the eggs are placed in a dye-bath.  The wax helps to retain the color and, eventually, the wax is melted off to leave nothing but beautiful colors and patterns.

Sometimes, the eggs are big/thick enough to have the patterns actually carved into the surface, leaving a lot more texture.

Faberge Eggs are an extreme version of the Slavic art of egg painting.  They're extravagant eggs made by the House of Faberge, mostly for the rich (because no one else could afford them.  In fact, that's still true to this day).  The eggs were covered in gold and jewels, making them incredibly extravagant (though, incredibly beautiful).  The most famous of these eggs were made for the Russian Imperial Family, the Romanovs.  There were 54 eggs total made for the family, 42 of them surviving to this day.

 

Crazy extravagant, aren't they?

Hate Crime Laws

So, originally, I was going to give you a background on Mormonism (the religion of the two boys who murdered Matt Shepard), but I realized that it might spawn the very terrible things that this play rallies against. 

So instead, I'm going to talk about the good things that came out of this tragedy: Hate Crime Laws.

When Matthew Shepard was killed (due to his sexual orientation), his murderers couldn't be tried for hate crimes.  Mainly because Wyoming didn't have any hate crime laws, and the federal hate crime laws didn't included sexual orientation.

I wasn't really sure if we'd seen a picture of him yet. 

But I liked this one, with him smiling.

It was a rough road from there on out for what has become known as the "Matt Shepard Act."  Wyoming, inevitably, didn't pass any hate crime laws, but they were split exactly even when one was proposed.  During Bill Clinton's presidency, an amendment was proposed to extend hate crime laws to include violent acts against homosexuals, woman and persons with disabilities.  Despite Clinton being in favor of it, the bill could not get past the House of Representatives.

The "Matt Shepard Act" was officially drafted and introduced in 2007.  It passed in both the House and the Senate, but President Bush said that he would veto the act, and it lost support and steam.

It wasn't until 2009, when President Obama was in office, that the bill really took off.  Obama supported (and eventually approved) the law and both the House and the Senate approved it with large margins.  Obama signed the bill on October 28, 2009, over ten years after the death of Matt Shepard.

The law now protects people attacked for race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, amended from the original 1969 law.  This is the first law that protects the rights of Transgenders.

Historical Fiction / Alternate History

Historical fiction is a great combination of history and fiction. The author uses history as inspiration, and fills in the gaps and details with fiction (aka made-up stuff).

Historical fiction must follow three basic rules, and authors of historical fiction are expected to do thorough research in order to follow them:

Plausibility. While you're reading the story, you should believe that it could have actually happened that way. Historical fiction is not the place for King James to traverse the Atlantic on the back of a Kraken to feed the starving colonists because he psychically connected with one of them during a dream.

Authentic setting & characters. This ties closely to plausibility. If you're inventing characters and dropping them into history, they need to fit in, to a certain degree. You don't put Cleopatra in a discotheque, or Disco Stu in 14th century Parliament, if you're writing historical fiction.

Accurate timeline. Historical fiction authors aren't The Doctor. They have to follow events as they happened in history (with a little wiggle room for artistic license). Historical fiction doesn't allow the Titanic to sink in the 1930s or for the Conestoga wagon to be invented fifty years early.

So, what if you want to break the rules (like this bad-ass bird)? Then you can write alternate history. That's historical fiction that breaks the above rules. You want Hitler to have a pet dilophosaurus that ultimately turns on him and eats his face? Alternate history. Your pierced, tattooed, punk-rock chick pops up in antebellum Georgia to kick slaveowner butt? Alternate history. John Lennon becomes president of the USA (somehow)? Alternate history.

 

The existence of time travel as a plot device makes alternate history easier for some authors. If you have a time machine, you can go back and change something that we know to have happened, thus allowing you to change whatever stemmed from that now-changed event. Sometimes, alternate history uses the "many-worlds" theory to explain its existence. Sure, in your world, Atlantis disappeared, but in this world, it never disappeared. But it isn't necessary to embrace the many-worlds theory or the existence of time travel or any other devices. Lots of alternate history authors just make their audience suck it up and deal with the fact that this history is different from the one you know.

To recap: Historical fiction is more history, while alternate history is more fiction.

      

Historical Fiction: could be true, like The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood, The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas, and I, Claudius by Robert Graves.

      

Alternate History: all the artistic license you want, like the Leviathan series by Scott Westerfeld (where "Darwinist" beasties and "Clanker" mecha assist the two sides of WWI), The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick (where Germany and Japan won WWII), or Making History by Stephen Fry (where a time machine exists and Hitler was never born).

Favorite Historical Fiction Novel

So, normally this is where I would put The Queen's Fool or The Constant Princess, but since we're talking about Gregory... pretty much all week, I'll pick another book that I absolutely adore.

The Kitchen Boy is one in a series of three about the Romanov's.  This one is probably the most heartbreaking, because it's about the fall of the Romanov family (if you know anything about the Romanov's, that whole story is tragic.)

The book takes place from the point of view of a kitchen boy, that serves the Romanov family.  When the book starts, the Romanovs are already in custody in the small house that they were killed in.  Robert Alexander does an amazing job of portraying all of the Romanovs and you can tell that he's really done his homework on the time period.  (I know; I've read a bunch on the family and the tragedy and a lot of what he writes matches up.)

I'm not going to spoil anything, but the end of his book is where he takes the most creative license.  I also like it because (before 2007) it could have been entirely plausible.  So it's not SO far from the original story that I don't believe it could happen, but I know that it didn't.

It's a good story, and entirely hopeful, which I feel you need in a story as tragic as this one.

While we all know that I (and Cassy) love Holocaust fiction, we just talked about that during Cold Mountain week when we discussed our favorite war books, so my pick for favorite historical fiction goes... pre-historical.

Jean M. Auel published the six books of the Earth's Children series between 1980 and 2011, starting with Clan of the Cave Bear and ending with Land of the Painted Caves. The series follows a woman named Ayla in prehistoric Earth. Every book was meticulously researched; Auel is noteworthy for her commitment to her research, corresponding with experts and traveling extensively to visit actual ruins and artifacts.

Every book in the series is rather thick, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that large expanses of the narrative are eaten up by detailed descriptions of landscapes, flora and fauna, etc. This can get tedious, but it's beautifully written and if you have the patience for it, it's really fascinating stuff, particularly if you keep in mind that it's all as factual as it gets, based on in-depth research and all the evidence we have (or had at the time Auel wrote each book).

The Tudor Tree

Welcome to your (slightly shortened) history lesson on Tudor England!

In case you happen to know nothing about me, I LOVE Tudor England.  It's my favorite time period to read about, starting at Henry VIII and his man whorish ways, and ending at James VI, who took over the English and Scottish throne, basically because there was no one left.



I know that's KIND of a big picture, but I wanted you to at least see the whole family tree. 

See, Henry VII came into power because he won a war (the last one to achieve his throne that way.)  He defeated Richard III and then married Richard III's niece, securing his place on the English throne for the next 25 years.  Honestly, no one really remembers much about Henry VII other than he preceded Henry VIII.  Henry VII had four children, Arthur, Margaret, Henry and Mary.

Arthur was the original heir to the throne of England.  He was older than Henry and he actually married Catherine of Aragon, causing peace between the English and the Spanish (who were constantly at war... actually, EVERYONE was at war during this time period.  No one ever got along.)

However, shortly after Arthur and Catherine were married, Arthur got what was called the "sweating disease" and died.  He was only 16 years old at the time.  He left Catherine of Aragon a widow and stranded in England for 8 years.

Now, here is where Henry VIII's controversy starts.  Catherine claims that Arthur and she never consummated their marriage (no one really know for sure if they did or not.)  Henry didn't really care.  He married Catherine, despite how shady it seemed (also, the Catholic church would not allow you to marry your widowed sister-in-law.  It was basically incest to them.)

During their marriage, they had one daughter, Mary.  But they didn't have any sons.  And we know it's ALL about the sons in England.  So what did Henry do?  He divorced his wife, of course, so he could get an heir.

And he kept doing this, for the next seven wives.  Anne Boleyn was beheaded (but it should be noted that she was Elizabeth's mother.)  Jane Seymour actually DID produce and heir (Edward VI), but died due to childbirth complications.  Anne of Cleves had a terrible relationship with Henry, and as such their marriage was annulled.  She was the only wife to come out alive, minus his final wife, and that's only because Henry died before the final wife could be killed.  He then married Catherine Howard, who he subsequently killed because she wasn't a virgin when she married him.  Catherine Parr was the last wife of Henry VIII.

The other major thing you need to know about Henry is that he completely reformed religion in England.  Catholics reigned supreme in Europe during that time, and the Pope had more power than kings.  Henry VIII opposed that idea (mainly because he wanted to divorce his wife and the church wouldn't let him.)  He rejected Catholic ideals and became Protestant.  He was actually the first building block of reform in Europe.  He planted the idea that one man didn't rule supreme (though that probably wasn't his intent.)

After Henry's death, the country was unstable.  Edward VI rose to the throne easily, but he was a sickly child.  Just seven years after becoming king, Edward died at 15 of tuberculosis.

Mary and Elizabeth fought for the throne almost all of Mary's life.  Elizabeth was smart and had her mother's cunning.  Much of the country wanted Elizabeth to rule, because she was Protestant (like both Henry VIII and her brother Edward), whereas Mary was Catholic.

Mary inevitable started a reign of terror to convert her country to Catholicism.  People were constantly being burned at the stake and, inevitably, earned her the name "Bloody Mary."  (Haha, and you thought it was just an urban myth.)

When Mary finally died, Elizabeth took the throne.  Her reign was considered the golden years for England (though not without its own peril.  Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots), who considered herself the heir to the English throne, tried MULTIPLE times to oust Elizabeth from her seat.)  Elizabeth built her kingdom up, was loved by the majority of her country and brought them into prosperity.  She even defeated the Spanish Armada (A REALLY big deal at the time), while delivering the best speech ever.

Our book this week, The Queen's Fool, deals with Mary's rule.  While the book is told from the point of view of a young (Jewish) girl, she enters Mary's court and reports all that she sees.  Gregory actually has a series of Tudor England based books, ranging from Catherine of Aragon to Elizabeth I.

Author Bio - Philippa Gregory

This week, we're reading The Queen's Fool by Philippa Gregory.

Gregory has written extensively on Tudor England.  If fact, The Queen's Fool is not even the first book she came out with (but... it's better than the first one, and shorter, so that's the one we're reading.)

She was born in Kenya, but her family moved to England when she was just two years old.  After attending the University of Sussex, she got her doctorate in 18th Century Literature at the University of Edinburg.

It was while in school in Edinburg that Gregory wrote her first novel, Wideacre.  It ended up being widely popular, and she wrote two other books to complete the series.  After two divorces (and two kids) she is currently settle with her third husband and six kids (and step-kids) on a 100 acres in North York Moors.

The Other Boleyn Girl is the first book in her Tudor series.  It follows Mary Boleyn (Anne's older sister and a consort of Henry's before Anne) and then we learn of Anne's relationship with Henry, but through Mary's eyes.  The book has been adapted not only into a BBC short series, but also a film in 2008 (It has Scarlett Johansen, Eric Bana, Natalie Portman and Jim Sturgess.  Four VERY fine reasons to go see it. :D)

The other books of the series are (In order of release, NOT chronological):

The Queen's Fool (Mary Tudor's Reign)
The Virgin's Lover (Elizabeth's Reign)
The Constant Princess (Catherine of Aragon)
The Boleyn Inheritance (Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr)
The Other Queen (Elizabeth's reign, but about Mary, Queen of Scots' exploits)

She has also written a series about the other members of the Tudor family, from Edward IV's consort, to Henry VIII's mother.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding Gregory's work, mainly because it is largely fictional.  But, you know, they ARE in the fiction section, and I don't believe she's ever claimed they're accurate.  She takes a lot of rumors of the time, that COULD be true, but probably aren't, and worked them into her books.  But, as we all know, a lot of people think that historical fiction is actually historical fact. (Be sure to come back on Thursday for more discussion of historical fiction!)

Despite the problems people have with them, they're great books and definitely worth picking up (especially if you enjoy reading about this time period, like I do.)

Review Me Twice - Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier

I saw the movie to this ages ago (and enjoyed it!)  It was also part of the reason I picked this book (the other being I saw it on the display at the Library and decided we should do it.)

Other than not being able to get the image of Nicole Kidman and Renee Zellweger out of my head (who, incidentally, don't look ANYTHING like the characters in the book), I was a little less impressed with Cold Mountain the book than Cold Mountain the movie.

The thing that really killed it for me was Inman.  He had fled the army after he was injured (totally believable considering that was a HUGE problem on the Confederate side towards the end of the war.)  That was about where my interest ended.  There was a lot of walking going on with Inman.  A lot of uninteresting walking.

Also, for a guy who is trying to hide from the confederate army, he certainly talks to a lot of people.  He never seems to have qualms about going up to houses or villages or just believing whatever random strangers on the road tell him.  And it gets him in trouble more than a few times.  You would think he would learn after awhile, but he never really did.  And he ALWAYS ended up on top.  Always.  The man had the uncanny ability to get himself out of situations, which makes the ending all the more unbelievable.

However, I really liked the parts with Ada and Ruby.  I liked watching Ruby, a self-sufficient woman who could care for a farm on her own, whip Ada into shape.  And I liked watching Ada pull out the softer side of Ruby.  She dulled Ruby's edges.  Their story was engaging and interesting and really hopeful.

So, I guess I half liked the book, because the chapters would alternate between Ada and Inman's stories.

My Bottom Line 2 1/2 out of 5

Honesty time: I did not finish this book. And the main reason was something Cassy already covered: Inman's chapters are snoozefests, while Ada's are far and away more interesting to read, but not compelling enough for me to want to suffer through an Inman chapter to get to the next Ada chapter. So I would put the book down more often and for longer than I should have to get through the whole thing.

Like Cassy, I very much liked Ruby and the way she interacted with Ada. Usually, I can't stand a helpless, clueless, depressed character, but I liked Ada from the beginning, despite her complete and utter inability to function as a human being on her own (though I can totally understand why... having been bred for education and society, she was plunged into circumstances requiring her to run an estate and feed herself with no training in those areas, and she couldn't exactly Google "biscuit recipe"). But then Ruby shows up and things get even better.

I've never seen the movie, but I might watch it now just to see the remainder of the story.

Civil War History

We all know that I could go on for days and days and days about Civil War history.  I mean, it last for four years on our own soil.  There's a LOT that happened.  But, I'm going to try and just stick with the highlights here.  Starting with...

Why it Started:

We all know that Slavery was a reason that we were fighting the Civil War.  The South wanted it; the North didn't (though, let's not fool ourselves.  The North didn't LIKE or respect the blacks, they simply just didn't want to enslave them.)

But a big part of it was State's Rights too.  The south believed that their rights in their states should be held up in all states (mainly, that they could bring their slaves to states where slavery was illegal and still keep their slaves around.)  This was a huge issue.  The south also strongly believed that it was their right to secede from the Union, which they inevitably did.  The North believed more strongly in preserving the union.  The south and north were one country and should stay that way.


The Major Players:

Ulysses S. Grant- He was a General in the Union army and fought more than a few battles.  But he didn't win them all.  For a long time, people thought that the South was going to win the war.  The Battle of Fort Sumter was the first battle in the Civil War and it was a confederate win.  As we all know, Grant became the 18th President of United States (or maybe you didn't.  You could have not known that.)  He's also credited with ending the Civil War at Appomattox Courthouse.

George McClellan- He was commander of the Army of the Potomac (the largest army the Union had.)  He was also widely known for organizing troops quickly and effectively.  He was put in charge of the Army of the Potomac after the devastating defeat at Bull Run

Robert E. Lee - Probably the most famous name on the Confederate side.  He was very loyal and, though he opposed the succession, he joined Confederate forces because his home state fell into the Confederacy.  While Lee won many battles, he met his match with Grant and the two were constantly meeting on the battlefield.  Inevitably, it was Lee that surrendered to Grant.

Stonewall Jackson - The other name that is incredibly recognizable.  Jackson won the Battle of Bull Run, an incredible Confederate win, and continued to fight until he was killed by friendly fire at the battle at Chancellorsville.  He was determined and about as stubborn as Grant was.

The Major Battles:

Battle of Fort Sumter

This is considered the first fight (or skirmish) of the Civil War, and was won by the Confederate side.  The siege was composed mostly of volunteers to the Union army.

Battle of Bull Run

It was the first MAJOR land battle between the two sides.  The Union army hadn't been properly trained yet and it let to a major victory for the Confederate army.

Battle of Belmont

It was where Grant started his Civil War career.  It showed off Grant's leading savvy, despite not holding onto Belmont for long.

Battle of Winchester

Winchester was, surprisingly, a pivotal place to hold (surprising because the town is so tiny, you blink and you miss it.  And that's MODERN Winchester.  Civil War Winchester must have been SO TINY.)  Really, it's claim to fame is that it changed hands over 100 times during the war, 14 times in just one day.

Battle of Fredericksburg

Fredericksburg was a HUGE battle, mainly because it had more troops than any other battle during the civil war.  It was a crushing defeat for the union army, having twice the causalities than the Confederates.  A large factor was that the confederates had the high ground, and the Union army kept heading straight at them.

Battle of Gettysburg

The largest battle in the war, it was considered the turning point of the Civil War.  A Union win, this battle had almost 50000 casualties and was a war that caused the Union army to rally.  The war tide started turning after this, despite the war lasting two more years.

Obviously, these are just a few facts about the war.  Some facts that are more pertinent to the story this week?  Towards the end of the war, the Confederate army started hemorrhaging men.  Tons of men left the army, whether legally or illegally, because they knew that the south had lost.  Despite that, the Confederate army would send them back, or more often, just kill them on sight.

Also, Virginia was probably the most fought on land.  It was kind of a "no-man's" land, in between the two armies.  Virginia actually was a divided state: half of it wanted to succeed and the other half was against the succession, a division that became permanent when West Virginia separated from Virginia, becoming its own state.

History of Manga

As we learned from Alex, manga is another form of Graphic Novels.  It's a lot more stylistic and different from your usual graphic novel though.

The Kangi for Manga

Japanese in origin, manga significantly predates the comic (by about 150 years.)  The word itself directly translates into "whimsical drawings" and while the comics are Japanese, the word origin is Chinese.

Modern manga appeared in the 1940s as a huge post-war movement.  Astro Boy was probably the first and most popular manga that appeared during that time.  To this day, it is still immensely popular in Japan.

Manga has come to include a huge range of subjects, from space travel (such as Cowboy Beebop), to superheroes, even porn.  You can get manga books, magazine and of course, anime, which is essentially manga translated to television (though, to be fair, the styles tend to differ slightly between anime and manga.)

 





This is the manga version of Sailor Moon;

below is the anime version.  See the style difference?

The US even started to catch onto the craze, though much later than Japan.  Manga started to make its appearance in the 1980s.  Anime actually exploded in the US first, mostly because it was much more accessible than manga was.  During the 90s, when anime really became big, the manga counterparts became more readily available.  Though originally published left to right, most manga now reads right to left, as originally intended.  Dragonball Z, Pokémon and Ghost in a Shell were some of the most popular and among the first manga to come over.

If you want to know more about manga and anime, the Wikipedia page is immensely thorough.

Famous Addresses

Everyone recognizes 221 B Baker Street.  It's Sherlock Holmes' address!  There are LOTS of addresses we recognize, both real and not.  Holmes' address is unique in the fact that it actually exists, despite being "fictional."  Here are just a few other addresses that are instantly recognizable.

1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Probably the most well known address in America.  The first president to live in the White House was John Adams.  In 1814, it was burned during the War of 1812 by the British, but was quickly renovated and the president was able to reside in it again in 1817.

4 Privet Dr.

Anyone one who knows even the slightest anything about Harry Potter knows that throughout his youth he stayed at Privet Dr. with his aunt and uncle (who hated him.)  And while we loathed the place as much as he did, the story just wouldn't be the same were he not to return there each book.  This is also another address that exists in real life.

10 Downing St.

Like the White House in America, Downing street is notorious for the Prime Minister's house, in Britain.  Built in the late 1600s, it's currently a house that has about 100 rooms in it, including a private residence.

112 1/2 Beacon St.

Does everyone know your name?  Well, if you went to the Cheers bar they would.  The show ran for more than ten years and incurred two spin offs, one of which (Frasier), ran for another 10 years, all on its own.

30 Rockefeller Plaza

A more modern address, this is the address of NBC studios, which spun the show 30 Rock.  Because of this address, we were all treated to the hilariousness that is Tina Fey.

These are just some of the most recognizable places.  What address do you know that aren't listed here?  Let us know!!

I Spy with my little telescope, hidden in my boot.

This week, we're talking about spies (since we're, you know, reading James Bond.  The ultimate spy.)  What's the coolest thing about spies?  Why, their gadgets of course.  And while some of these might not be as cool as you imagine James Bond to have, they are all spy tools used in real life.

Dart Gun

Originally used by the KGB (as most everything was), it was a teeny tiny dart gun that could shoot over 250 feet.  The CIA got a hold of it, but reports say that no agents actually used this little devise.  Oh, and did I mention that it was tipped with poison?

Exploding Briefcase

No, this wasn't used to blow up a roomful of enemies (though, I suppose points in the plus column if it did.)  It was actually used by British spies to protect documents that fell into the wrong hands.  The carrier of the briefcase knew exactly how to open it.  So, if it got into the hands of the enemy, the idea was they would open it up incorrectly and the entire thing would explode, destroying all of the sensitive information and, let's face it, probably the bad guy trying to open it up.

Cigarette Case Gun

When you're a spy, it's all about being able to conceal things.  During WWII (which is when most of these things were invented), the Americans had a small, gold cigarette case for their spies, that shot not only bullets, but cyanide tipped bullets, ensuring that even if the spy missed the vital organs, the target would still die.

Olive Microphone

This little gadget was actually never put into production, but used to convince congress to err on the side of caution.  It was a tiny (fake) olive that held a short range microphone, easily able to be placed in someone's martini glass and record their every word.  After this, Congress really brought down some harsh bugging laws, making it much more difficult to record someone without their consent.


These are just a few spy gadgets that exist.  If you're interested in more, check out the Spy Museum if you ever happen to be in the DC area.  Have a favorite gadget?  Real or fake, let us know!  And stay stealthy.