So - Richard!

[byslantedlight]

Oddly enough, the whole Richard III/Princes in the Tower thing was something I missed out on at school (or perhaps not oddly, we looked at gold rushes and things like that instead... *g*), so although I think the archaeology and science and discovery and all of Richard III are very cool, it's not got quite the same emotional attachment for me as it seems to have for a lot of people. The University of Leicester and all have done a great job of hyping it all up though, to the point that I stayed up to watch the documentary about it last night...

...and nearly cried. Not about Richard (finding his skeleton doesn't change what that body may have done whilst it was alive, though I'm more interested in finding out about it!), but about the state of so-called historical documentaries on our telly! With every wonderful thing that they've done with science in archaeology, all the amazing advances that have been made and their application to the remains found in the carpark... we got that.

What I'd been looking forward to:
- seeing how they'd matched the mtDNA to the two alleged descendants
- seeing what they'd worked out about the level of his scoliosis, considering the dramatic curvature of the vertebra
- seeing how they created his facial reconstruction, not (at a very shallow level) a reconstruction
- hearing more about the story of Richard, and why this was all such a big deal.

What we got instead:
- told they'd matched the DNA
- told "this is what he looked like"
- told "some people thought he was evil but some people don't believe that"
- far too much Shakespeare in the background, when they were purporting to be overturning the image
- far too much wibbly guff about the RIIIsoc woman's "journey". I was with Appleby, the osteologist, who a) refused to carry the remains around draped in a flag until they'd been properly verified (proud of her, I was, for that refusal!); and b) looked rather embarrassed and trying not to laugh out loud when the RIIIsoc woman had to leave the room for a wee cry after being told that the skeleton did indeed have scoliosis which may have resulted in a hunched back (and possible problems finding armour to fit...) Yes this might be important to you personally, and something you spend alot of emotional energy on, but I'm not interested in spending 90 minutes of my life finding out about you, nice as you might be, I want to know about what was found! Tell me that, not how much you want to have a cry!
- far too much emphasis on how spooky it was that there'd been an "R" on the carpark in the exact spot, and the arch's came down on the remains straight away, and oooh didn't it rain hard just as they'd found them? (It's archaeology! It's sod's law that it always starts to rain as soon as you find something that really shouldn't get wet! And it's England!)

I'm all about keeping the human factor in archaeology, and that's something I think the UK does well, but I want the human factor about what's been found (and why we can believe it), not about the people doing the finding... I don't want dull, dry telly either, but by all accounts this is Richard III, who had quite the life and death - there was battle and intrigue and murder, and the death of his own young son, and... and... and... This is where Henry VII (to be) triumphed, and the country was hugely changed by Tudor rule (would we have had the Church of England without it...?) And where was I left to find most of that information? Wiki-sodding-pedia! If I hadn't been reading about it all afternoon first, I'd've come away absolutely no wiser, having seen the documentary.

Is it just me? Am I just very grumpy because when we're making brilliant advances, what I'm seeing is the dumbing down of any vaguely educational historical content on telly at all? Should I just shut up and wait for Strictly Archaeologists on Ice in all their spangled glory? (Or the return, perhaps, of Bonekickers... *shudders*)

Comments

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

I've heard a few comments to this effect, that, once again, the story was being slanted toward the Shakespearean fable. For one, scoliosis does not result in a hunched back. One shoulder would have appeared higher than the other and his active life style most likely helped, too, so it wasn't the deformity it appears they're still trying to foist on him. For the rest, the dozens of fine books about him do a much better job than Wikipedia. I can certainly give you some recommendations if you wish. :-)

I guess my only consolation is that this seems to be the future of documentaries, more "docu-drama" than actual history, and not that they're picking on Richard specifically.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Oh no, I didn't think the story was slanted towards Shakespeare's play at all - very much the opposite, throughout!

I'm not sure about foisting a deformity on him, but I was fascinated with the degree of deformity in the spine of the skeleton. Google imaging scoliosis certainly suggests that there may have been a visible difference in his stance, which could lead to name-calling - as they pointed out in the programme, if you want to malign someone, its more effective to take a fault and exaggerate it than to make one up entirely. And we don't know that what they called a hunchback 500 years ago is the same shape we'd call a hunchback, so I think that's all fairly open to interpretation... What I wanted to see though was what that skeleton would have looked like with flesh, how it compared with what we know of the disease today, etc etc... It looked dramatic, but how much would that necessarily have reflected in the man's physique? By all accounts (according to the programme) he was considered quite the warrior, so presumably it wasn't too debilitating...

I may well add a book or two to my reading list - sadly I wasn't anywhere near a library when I was typing this yesterday afternoon! Probably just as well I wasn't near a bookshop... *g*

This definitely isn't the first documentary that's dramatised the process more than the information - actually the same kind of dramatisation can be seen over here on gameshows now too, where the pause between finding out if your answer was right or wrong, winning or losing, is ridiculously drawn out for the added "excitement" of the moment - it's one of the most disappointing, though...

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

What I wanted to see though was what that skeleton would have looked like with flesh, how it compared with what we know of the disease today, etc etc... It looked dramatic, but how much would that necessarily have reflected in the man's physique? By all accounts (according to the programme) he was considered quite the warrior, so presumably it wasn't too debilitating...

The only account that's anywhere near contemporary comments on one shoulder being higher than the other, nothing about Richard being obviously deformed. And during his coronation, he would have been shirtless, so it isn't as if no one ever saw that part of his body.

I may well add a book or two to my reading list - sadly I wasn't anywhere near a library when I was typing this yesterday afternoon! Probably just as well I wasn't near a bookshop... *g*

There certainly are enough of them. For someone who only reigned for less than two years, he'd had a lot of press.

Oh, and you might try the Leicester University YouTube site. There's at least one really good video on how they sequenced the mDNA.

[byslantedlight.livejournal.com]

Leicester Uni's Richard III website is nicely done, isn't it - I only saw it after I'd written my post, and it's much more what I'd hoped the documentary would be! Not watched the vids yet, but if I get a chance tonight... *g*

Perhaps if Richard was briefly shirtless during his coronation (that was traditional then, was it? how many people would have seen him close enough to tell, I wonder...) it would have been just enough to lend truth to what could later be exaggerated...