You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
I picked up this book because it was referenced in several articles around the discovery and analysis of the bones of Richard III. It's a curious story about an injured detective passing the time trying to unravel the truth about the maligned king. He goes through various historical sources to reach his final conclusions on the real truth behind Richard III and the murder of the two princes. The writing is a bit formal and old fashioned now, but it's well worth the read for those interested in the history of the king.
Despite The Daughter of Time being a mere 206 pages, it was such a slog to get through. This was mostly because the book could have easily been made into a more compact essay and been so much more interesting and readable.
The pitch of this book is that an investigator solves a 500 year old crime and "proves" that Richard III didn't kill the princes in the tower. But, the book isn't very successful as a mystery. We already know the conclusion of the author from the beginning: that Richard III didn't do it, so that angle of the story is of little interest to me. The more interesting parts of the book are its reflections on the nature of history and historical fact finding.
Ultimately though, I wonder if these individual interesting points are enough to sustain a whole novel that is essentially characterless and plotless. The duration of the book is spent wondering about who did it, and yet that is obvious to the reader the whole time; the experience of reading it then is mostly to watch how the investigators draw their conclusions. This to me wasn't sustainable because the characters aren't developed enough to excuse the lack of investigative momentum. Vague etchings of character and setting dance around the edges of this book's pages, but in the end the author's focus is on drawing out this tedious mystery and following an overlong string of dry facts.
It's a unique book that I might recommend to someone interested in the subject, however it really was difficult to get through and I would be fine never reading it again.
The pitch of this book is that an investigator solves a 500 year old crime and "proves" that Richard III didn't kill the princes in the tower. But, the book isn't very successful as a mystery. We already know the conclusion of the author from the beginning: that Richard III didn't do it, so that angle of the story is of little interest to me. The more interesting parts of the book are its reflections on the nature of history and historical fact finding.
Ultimately though, I wonder if these individual interesting points are enough to sustain a whole novel that is essentially characterless and plotless. The duration of the book is spent wondering about who did it, and yet that is obvious to the reader the whole time; the experience of reading it then is mostly to watch how the investigators draw their conclusions. This to me wasn't sustainable because the characters aren't developed enough to excuse the lack of investigative momentum. Vague etchings of character and setting dance around the edges of this book's pages, but in the end the author's focus is on drawing out this tedious mystery and following an overlong string of dry facts.
It's a unique book that I might recommend to someone interested in the subject, however it really was difficult to get through and I would be fine never reading it again.
Overview
My Dad bought me this book about 6 months ago I think. I have no clue as to why any more. There was a reason but it has escaped me. Regardless, it is historical fiction to a point and I study History so I read it. For anyone going into this is it very much based on history and doesn't moved away from that the entire story. If you don't enjoy history, to be honest, don't bother picking this up. You will probably not like it and it will be a waste of money.
However, on the flip side, if you really enjoy history, there are parts of this you won't really care about. I did not care for the characters that much, when they were not talking about Richard I skipped it. This is part of a larger series so if I started from book 1 it would probably be different but you don't have to start from book 1. This reads perfectly fine by itself.
The Reign of Richard III is not something I am particularly knowledgeable on. Obviously the basics have stayed with me from studying the Tudors and Stuarts in Primary 5 (which was over ten years ago) when we went over Richard as background on the rise of the Tudors. Due to this, I am not sure how much of this book is accurate. What happened to the Princes/ who killed them is still debated and it probably always will be but the details in this book are not something I can vouch for. This is also the small matter of this book being 60ish years old so historical fact willhave changed since then just has a matter of course.
My Dad bought me this book about 6 months ago I think. I have no clue as to why any more. There was a reason but it has escaped me. Regardless, it is historical fiction to a point and I study History so I read it. For anyone going into this is it very much based on history and doesn't moved away from that the entire story. If you don't enjoy history, to be honest, don't bother picking this up. You will probably not like it and it will be a waste of money.
However, on the flip side, if you really enjoy history, there are parts of this you won't really care about. I did not care for the characters that much, when they were not talking about Richard I skipped it. This is part of a larger series so if I started from book 1 it would probably be different but you don't have to start from book 1. This reads perfectly fine by itself.
The Reign of Richard III is not something I am particularly knowledgeable on. Obviously the basics have stayed with me from studying the Tudors and Stuarts in Primary 5 (which was over ten years ago) when we went over Richard as background on the rise of the Tudors. Due to this, I am not sure how much of this book is accurate. What happened to the Princes/ who killed them is still debated and it probably always will be but the details in this book are not something I can vouch for. This is also the small matter of this book being 60ish years old so historical fact willhave changed since then just has a matter of course.
challenging
informative
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
A Golden-Age detective-fiction classic: laid up in hospital with a badly-broken leg and bored out of his skull, Scotland Yard inspector Alan Grant decides to re-open possibly the most famous cold case in history--the murders of the two Princes in the Tower. As he applies his keen insight and years of experience to the case, he begins to wonder how much truth there is in the traditional image of Richard III. What he learns may upset everything we thought we knew...
I'd had this recommended to me many years ago, and only now have I managed to read it. (Thank heavens for Indigo's special offers!) I wish I'd read it sooner, but I'm glad that I've finally done it. This is as pretty a piece of detective fiction as you could ever wish to lay your hands on. The plotting is exceptional, especially considering that the "action" is confined to a hospital bed. I hardly wanted to put it down.
The characters are nicely drawn, if not particularly rounded, apart from Grant. The supporting cast move in and out of Grant's hospital room, sometimes only briefly appearing. Tey, however, is one of those writers who can illuminate a character with a few gestures, so the reader can easily picture them and get a good sense of who they are.
I suspect I may start haunting second-hand bookstores in search of more of Tey's mysteries. I'm certainly going to read up on Richard III.
I'd had this recommended to me many years ago, and only now have I managed to read it. (Thank heavens for Indigo's special offers!) I wish I'd read it sooner, but I'm glad that I've finally done it. This is as pretty a piece of detective fiction as you could ever wish to lay your hands on. The plotting is exceptional, especially considering that the "action" is confined to a hospital bed. I hardly wanted to put it down.
The characters are nicely drawn, if not particularly rounded, apart from Grant. The supporting cast move in and out of Grant's hospital room, sometimes only briefly appearing. Tey, however, is one of those writers who can illuminate a character with a few gestures, so the reader can easily picture them and get a good sense of who they are.
I suspect I may start haunting second-hand bookstores in search of more of Tey's mysteries. I'm certainly going to read up on Richard III.
The Daughter of Time (The Best Mysteries of All Time) by Josephine Tey (2003)
In a gist, I would say this book is like a laid-back and tamer version of the Da Vinci Code.
Interesting set-up. The detective, bored being confined to the hospital bed, decided to investigate one of the great mysteries in histories: did Richard III killed those kids?
Halfway through I had an epiphany - I do not care for British history. So many names, so many scandals! But I still pushed on because I did want to know if he killed those kids.
Just so-so for me and I pity the British kids who have to learn all these stuff.
Interesting set-up. The detective, bored being confined to the hospital bed, decided to investigate one of the great mysteries in histories: did Richard III killed those kids?
Halfway through I had an epiphany - I do not care for British history. So many names, so many scandals! But I still pushed on because I did want to know if he killed those kids.
Just so-so for me and I pity the British kids who have to learn all these stuff.
[b:The Daughter of Time|77661|The Daughter of Time|Josephine Tey|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1307325271s/77661.jpg|3222080] by Josephine Tey is a "mystery" of sorts, but one in which a Police Inspector, bedridden following a work accident, puzzles out what really happened to the Princes in the Tower, ostensibly killed by their Uncle, the hunch-backed Richard III. In the pre-internet era, he does his research with the assistance initially of the nurses caring for him, and later by the "Woolly Lamb" Brent Carradine, a young American in London who heads off to the British Museum to dig into the historical evidence for the killings. Together they discover that, for Richard III, history has truly been shaped by the victors, in this case Henry VII. This fascinating look at historical research and how popular myths come into being kept me in engrossed to the end and interested in reading more about this much-maligned King.
The writing style made this one kind of hard to get thru for me. Fortunately it's pretty short. I did enjoy reading her obviously well-researched theories about what really happened to the two princes.
The concept for this book is very clever. Police Inspector Grant is stuck in the hospital lying flat on his back due to an injury, staring at the ceiling for days. His friend, trying to cheer him up, decide he should take on a historical mystery. She prints off multiple portraits to see which one would grab his fancy. He lands on Richard III and decides to find the truth about the man in the portrait. From his hospital bed and the help of a researcher from the British Museum, he delves into the War of the Roses many twists and turns. Through the journey, Grant dissects how history is written by the victors. I would recommend this book to almost anyone. It's a great mash-up of a mystery and history.