Talking Tudor Fiction with Suzannah Dunn

Nicola here. Today I have the very great pleasure of welcoming best-selling British historical author Suzannah Dunn to the Word Wenches. I first came across Suzannah’s books when she was writing contemporary novels and she became an auto-buy for me. When I discovered that she had turned to writing Tudor-set historical fiction I was very happy indeed! The May Bride is her new book and tells the story of Jane Seymour and Jane's friendship with her dazzling sister-in-law Katherine Filliol. It’s a multi-faceted book with mystery, history, romance, intrigue and family relationships intermingled in a fascinating whole.

Suzannah, welcome to the Word Wenches! The May Bride has Jane Seymour as its narrator but it is as much the story of Jane’s sister-in-law Katherine Filliol as it is of Jane. How did you come across Katherine Filliol’s story? Why did it appeal to you?

I can't remember when I first came across it - it seems always to have been there, off to one side but
sort of disappearing whenever I turned to try to look at it, if you know what I mean.  It was never - anywhere - more than a mention, more than a footnote.  And that fascinated me.  Because how could something so big, as it were, have almost disappeared?  Edward Seymour was - became - a Big Tudor, he was Lord Protector for several years of the boy-king Edward V1's reign: ie effectively, he ruled England for those years  (which were years of great change, years which made much of the England that we recognise today).  How did he come to have such a hideous scandal in his private life - and by the way, he was such an unlikely person to have had a hideous scandal in his private life, which also fascinated me - and we know next to nothing about it? (Answer:  Edward was nothing if not efficient, and he was very efficient in keeping this under wraps...)

 

In both The May Bride and The Sixth Wife you focus on the lesser know aspects of a character’s life. In The May Bride this is Jane Seymour-Before-Henry and in The Sixth Wife it is Katherine Parr-After-Henry. Why did you choose these in preference to the well known periods? Is there something appealing about uncovering the part of the story that isn’t well known?

Yes, very much so!  You've answered your own question!  When I started out on the historical novels, my agent said to me,  'Don't just re-tell history.'  I had to ask him to expand a little, and he said,  'Tell us something we don't know.'  I took that to mean that perhaps I should tell a story through the eyes of someone unexpected  (shine a light at an unusual angle), and/or go into the gaps, as it were, in the well-known accounts.  And I've really enjoyed doing that.  (It means that I learn things, too, as I go along - that there are always things to discover.  If I were just re-telling history - animating the already well-known mouthpieces - it would make for a deadly boring couple of years for me.)

 What was your biggest challenge in writing The May Bride?

Staying awake.  No, really!  It's slower-moving than any of my others, with its turning through the seasons of Katherine's first year or so at Wolf Hall, in the Seymour family, and I found that hard-going - which is why I looked so amazed, Nicola, when you said  (when we met) that you'd found it compelling!  Amazed and grateful, I should say!

I had a lot of learning to do, too, about how those seasons turned in a largely self-sufficient household of that time.

Also, unusually for me, I had a quiet narrator  (Jane Seymour) - reserved, watchful, cautious.  Usually, I like quite a mouthy narrator!  I couldn't get her right for a long time - she was coming over as dull, stupid.  In fact, she didn't come right until the very end, as I recall, (I couldn't quite get the sense of her), and then I had to zip back through the book and kind of pull her narration tight, is how I think of it.  Like getting hold of a thread and pulling it tight - pulling it into shape.  The changes I made were very small, but they were  (I hope!) enough to sharpen her up.

That’s fascinating, because I do understand what you mean about the pace of the book but I think that sense of slowness is deceptive. The story is packed with small but significant detail that keeps you hooked, both fascinating historical detail and events that throw light on the characters and their relationships. As for Jane, she may be quiet but she’s a sharp observer! She notices interesting things.

Tell us about your research. How important is it to you to be historically accurate? 

Very.  I'm pretty hung up on verisimilitude - and often wish I could be a bit more relaxed about it!  I mean, I like the idea of 'what if', in fiction.  But, as I say:  for myself, if it's a matter of historical record, I don't deviate from it  (or try not to).  I don't know why it's so important to me - but I do know that when I was young, I wanted to be a documentary film-maker or documentary photographer;  I've always had a passion for social realism. 

That said, I don't use primary sources - I'm not a historian.  One of the (many!) beauties of the Tudor period is how well-documented it is, and how extensively written on.  There are such fabulous secondary sources and so very many of them...  so that's where I do my reading. 

You are well known for not using “Tudorspeak,” writing instead in a more modern style and with a modern “sensibility.” Why did you choose to do that?

Back when I decided I wanted to write a novel about Anne Boleyn - which came out of nowhere, for me, back in 2000, just before the current wave of Tudorphilia - I felt that I couldn't, because I wasn't a writer of historical fiction.  But then I said to myself,  'So, just do it modernly,'  before realising that I had no idea what I meant by that (!).  Did I mean that I should write a modern dress version?!  No.  It was to do with the language - both in dialogue and in the narrative in general.  Anne Boleyn was the quintessential modern woman, in her time.  That's what she was:  wholly 'modern', for her time.  If I were to convey that to a reader, I needed to use (our own version of) modern language, I decided.  I couldn't have her going around sounding quaint.  When it has come to the other, subsequent novels, the language isn't nearly so 'in yer face' - because the characters haven't been.  But, yes, I've retained the approach in general, because I enjoy it (!) and because I'm trying to get the characters to 'be here'.  Language that feels stilted and formal and quaint, to me, gives me a sense of watching characters down the wrong end of a telescope.  

I do realise, of course, that it doesn't appeal to everyone - the modern language - and I understand that, I do have some sympathy for any reader who finds it a bit ridiculous(/jarring)!

This brings me neatly on to how you create your Tudor world. You said in an interview once that the highest praise a reader could give one of your books was to say that they felt as though “they were there.” How do you transport your readers back in time?

Nicola, this is a very interesting question...because I've suddenly realised that I don't transport them back in time! - don't try to, I mean.  I think what I'm trying to do, when I'm writing, is kind of the other way around - I'm trying to make the characters in the novel feel as if they're here with us now.  As if they're alive, as if they're living now.  (And the same for aspects other than character ie  not put us there, but bring those elements here).  But, as I say, until you put the question, I hadn't thought of it that way!  (Although the Chair when I was recently at the Manchester Literature Festival asked me why I wrote about the past and my instinctive, baffling-to-me and, as a consequence, unvoiced response was,  'But I don't write about the past!'  Maybe now I'm beginning to understand what I meant by that!)

The Tudor period teems with fascinating characters. What made you choose to write about the ones you have?

Anne Boleyn speaks for herself! ...and then I wrote half of that novel from the point of view of the woman who made sugar sculptures at Henry V111's court because she was the only woman in a kitchen staff of around 200, and it struck me that she, like Anne Boleyn, was a woman in a man's world... I felt there was something to explore, there.

In The Sixth Wife, I was fascinated by how such a clever, cautious woman of considerable independent means then made the monumental mistake of marrying Thomas Seymour...  and I told that story from the point of view of Katherine Parr's very good friend, Catherine of Suffolk, who kept cropping up  (like the Seymour scandal! - always just out of focus!) and likewise seemed a really interesting woman, a big character, largely self-educated, shrewd and witty. 

A 'trick' I sometimes use to keep myself interested - to keep myself on my toes for the two years that it takes me to write a book - is to decide to write about someone whom I think I don't like or whom I think of as boring...  which accounts for Mary Tudor, Katherine Howard, and Jane Seymour!

And yet, I assume that when you delve into their stories they become a great deal more interesting to you because you certainly make them compelling characters on the page! (I particularly remember how much I enjoyed reading Katherine Howard’s narrative – she reminded me so much of some modern teenagers I’ve met!)

Is there a character you’ve written whom you particularly like or identify with?

Well, even though I've just said that I quite often choose someone I think I won't like, I suspect I like and/or identify with them all to some extent...  Take Anne Boleyn:  I love her for how uncompromising she was, but of course there's an awful lot there, too, not to like! ...and, moreover, I have the sense that she didn't really like women, so she wouldn't much have liked me!  (That's one way to look at this question! - to turn it on its head...  which of the characters would've particularly liked or identified with me?! )

That’s a great question and I am going to go away and think about not which historical figures I like but which might have liked me… Or not! Suzannah, thank you very much for such an interesting and thought-provoking interview.

Thank you for these arresting questions, Nicola, and thank you to the Wenches for having me!

 You can find Suzannah’s website at: www.http://suzannahdunn.net/

Susanna is offering a copy of The May Bride to one commenter between now and midnight Thursday. Please ask her anything you like about writing Tudor-set fiction and/or writing The May Bride. I can’t promise not to chip in myself as I LOVE this period of history and my next book also involves the Seymour family.  So to get everyone thinking… Which Tudor character do you particularly like or identify with and which one do you think would like you if they met you - and why? 

Comments

[Jobev]

Welcome, Susanna! How interesting that you're writing from the edges of Henry VIII's reign. Some of the middle ground is so well trodden. I've always thought of Jane Seymour as a footnote (to mix my metaphors!) so I'll have to check this out. Katherine Parr, OTOH, has always fascinated me.

Very interesting question about whether the characters I create would like me. Oh dear.... I shall have to go and have a stiff drink!

[Mary Jo Putney]

Nicola and Susannah, what a fascinating interview! I've always found Jane Seymour and Katherine Parr interesting, but I certainly knew about Edward Seymour, but Katherine Filliol is new to me--and very intriguing you make her!

As for whether my characters would like me...well, they all reflect something me, so I hope that would be good enough for at least a pleasant cup of coffee!

[kay]

I've always thought the Seymour family was an interesting, maybe dysfunctional family. Katherine Filliol is one of those interesting footnotes in history and the scandal involving her could be truly cringe-worthy depending on which dates are used for her marriage, if it's 1519 that would put her at 12 and her father-in-law at 45, if it's 1527 that would be 20 to his 53...either way makes me shudder. Think I might check out your book and see where you take us.

[Andrea Penrose]

Thank you for visiting the Wenches, Susanna! Fascinating interview, with really thought-provoking questions on how to write history and what characters make a compelling story. Can't wait to read The May Bride.

[Shannon]

Thank your for your insights into your journey with historical fiction.

As for the Tudors, I heard something on NPR in the last two weeks about an individual who was a great jouster, but when he met Henry on the field, he always lost narrowly. I can't remember but I think Henry ennobled him and wed him to a family member, perhaps his sister. While looking for that name on the web, I came across the story of Henry's sister Mary and her romance and eventual marriage with Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk. Apparently Mary was much more in love with him than he was with her, but she did avoid another political union arranged by her brother.

[Patricia Rice]

Thank you for visiting with us today! I was intrigued instantly by the word "mystery" and the fact that this is part of Tudor history I hadn't explored. So I ran over to Amazon to sneak a peek and was captured by your character description in the opening. Perhaps for someone accustomed to writing adventure on the first page, this might seem slow, but a great character description creates anticipation and page turning as much as action. I'm sold!

[Anne Gracie]

Wonderful interview, Susannah and Nicola — I must say I'm fascinated by the sound of these books. I haven't come across Susannah's books before, and I do like the sound of the characters she's chosen to write about, and coming at the stories from a different angle.

I wonder whether part of the reason for the richness of historical records of Tudor times is that it also coincided with the adoption of English as the official language of government, instead of Latin. No idea — just speculating.

[Sonya Heaney]

I read The Sixth Wife a few years ago and just loved it!

I really ought to get back to Tudor fiction. Recently most things I’ve read have been in the Regency era, but I loved the Tudor period first.

The language thing is such a dilemma. Authors – even people writing in the Victorian or Edwardian eras – can’t really have their characters speaking the way people did then. Yet you also have to convince readers the characters are in the time period they belong to. To find a happy medium must be really difficult to do…

[Suzannah Dunn]

(Yes, and, you know, I hadn't thought of it that way - would THEY like ME? - until this doing this interview with Nicola...)

[Suzannah Dunn]

In some cases - well, one, really, that I can think of - that's been a bit alarming: to think that a character reflects something of me. It was when I was writing as Catherine of Suffolk, who narrates 'The Sixth Wife'. I was very taken with what I'd read of her - the little Id' read of her (there really isn't much, or not that I ever found) - but I ended up giving her an affair with her pregnant bestfriend's husband (which is fictional!) and I felt sort of grubby for the whole time I was writing that book!

[Suzannah Dunn]

I can't remember the exact details, Kay, without going and sorting through the loft to find them (and who wants to do that?!), but for various reasons I settled on Katherine being around 20 at the time of her marriage (which was roughly Edward's age, too) and John Seymour being mid/late-forties. (Until I'd done those 'calculations', I suppose I'd been thinking of John Seymour as 'an old man' but of course he wasn't! Older than Katherine, yes, of course, but not old!)

[Suzannah Dunn]

Thank you, Cara/Andrea!

[Suzannah Dunn]

Yes, Charles Brandon was a lifelong best friend of Henry's. As far as I'm aware, he and Mary had wanted to marry anyway, but Henry married her off (when she was about 18, as far as I recall) to the v old king of France..but Mary made him promise that her next marriage would be of her own choice (I'm not sure how anyone would 'make' Henry promise anything, but that's the story! ..and clearly Mary was no push-over, so maybe she did indeed manage that). Duly, the old king died v soon after the marriage (!), after about six months...and Henry sent Charles over to France to fetch Mary back. Mary then 'made' (is this a theme?!) Charles marry her then and there (thinking, presumably, and no doubt correctly, that if they waited until they came back to England, they would be thwarted by Henry). So, they came back already married. Henry was furious (his permission not having been sought) and there's a marvellous quote of Charles Brandon's in response - I'm paraphrasing from memory but the gist was, 'But you know what women are like! - carrying on and crying and everything! She MADE me do it!' They were hugely fined by Henry for the transgression although in time they were let off much of it. They seem to have had a very happy marriage until Mary's death (again, off the top of my head, I think she was in her early forties?); they had a son, who died just before adulthood, and two daughters, one of whom became Jane Grey's mother, Frances. But Charles then re-married with dazzling haste - and his bride was his own 'ward', who had been intended for his own son (who sickened and died very shortly after this debacle); she was Catherine Willoughby (Catherine of Suffolk, whom I've mentioned above), and she was just fourteen, and had the first of their two sons when she was fifteen (and the other one a year later!). This was all much frowned-upon at the time - but, actually, they in turn seem to have had a long and successful (companionate) marriage, until Charles' death.

[Suzannah Dunn]

(Patricia, thank you, you've made my morning!)

[Suzannah Dunn]

Do you know, Anne, I hadn't thought of this! - although I am well-aware that people (of a certain class, or certain classes) were of course becoming much more literate at this time, which means that we have letters and diaries and so on, as well as official documents.

[Suzannah Dunn]

Yes, Sonya, and my (rather convenient!) line on this is that you can't please everybody all the time! I do realise that I am at one end of the spectrum, as it were, re how I render dialogue!

[Barbara Kuterbach]

My favorite Tudor person is Margaret de la Pole. She ha 4 sons--all of them different personalities. I have 4 sons--so different that you might think they came from 4 different families. Margaret and I could have had many a cozy chat comparing them.

[Anne Fescharek]

How did you cut through the archaic "tudorspeak" and translate their speech? I've seen Shakespeare productions that have not been as successful in their translations.
Please enter me. Thank you.
annfesATyahooDOTcom

[Suzannah Dunn]

Yes, but POOR Margaret Pole! - in what happened to her in the end. Trying not to think of her end but her beginning, I just looked her up and discovered she was born at Farleigh Hungerford, which is v close to where I live!
Yes, the son of hers who was Cardinal Pole (his first name momentarily escapes me - Reginald?) is the one I'm aware of, since he figures majorly in Mary Tudor's reign. He was her close friend and confidant, and, bizarrely, died on the v same day as she did.

[Suzannah Dunn]

Actually, Kay, I forgot to say, earlier, that when I was talking over my ideas - such as they were, at that stage - for the book with a friend, she suggested that if Katherine and her father-in-law had indeed had some encounter (or series of encounters, or whatever), it's possible that this wasn't consensual on Katherine's part. Good point, I felt, very good point - but I decided not to go with that, as a story line, because I already had a notion, by then, of the story that I wanted to write.

[Nicola Cornick]

Thank you all for your comments and questions. it;s been a great discussion. And a huge thank you to Suzannah for such a thought-provoking interview.

The prize drawing will be made in the next couple of days and we will notify the winner. Thank you!