Post date: Apr 18, 2017 3:04:56 AM
Okay so I'll admit my mind has been on X-men recently (I've had the soundtracks on loop for the past couple of days plus my basement has surround sound so guess what I did???) so of course the first in depth character / person we get is Guidobaldo who's virtuous but "deformed and ruined" but that doesn't stop him from doing his thing. My mind of course went straight to Professor X (of course) (WHY ERIK WHY???) (41).
Ehem. Sorry.
Of course this book isn't nearly as fun nor entertaining as a movie series about superheroes. For one, the after dinner get together with the Duchess sound boring as my high school graduation was. I had to bring a book to that.
Of course, I recognize the decorum and rather idyllic format of these parties was probably desirable to the attendees, but my 21st century self would rather have a drunken discussion about how awful Twilight was or even debating the idea of religion within the Wizarding World. The hierarchy of it all and deference to authority chafes against my idea of fun as "everyone is equal" and "we normally don't dine with the pope."
I then started trying to answer the various game questions. I was stumped on the first one because well how do we define a fault? Stubbornness and pride have good and bad sides as do virtues. The next question, how would I like to be foolish? Well, I'm already there as a broke college student who can recite random facts about Harry Potter but doesn't remember how old she is (true story).
The third guy is rather scary, should probably talk to someone...
And then of course they settle on the boring game that moves the book forward...
I feel as if this book would be more interesting in person, as the debates and rhetoric used are rather lost in text but would come alive with a voice and people to breathe emotion into the words. It is very reminiscent of my grandparents' house where they would host debates until 3 AM back in the day, we still do I guess. The back and forth of debate that allows the speaker to clarify and defend all in one, while maintaining decorum and showing off their wit is embodying the way of the courtier as much as the words attempt to define one. The debate itself interests me in the way that only arguments can. I'm a sucker for an intellectual fist fight. The book is at once an instruction manual for perfecting the courtier life as well as a practical example of it. I would never be this calm nor rational / decorous. It's rather interesting to see the differences between what it means to be a courtier back then and how I myself could never fit that mold.