“Random Pits of Blackness”

The end. Finally. Janet uncovered the truth! Of course, she also destroyed the relationship with her husband, but didn’t seem too worried about that. Neither was arrested or assassinated (yet), because Janet actually kept her mouth shut about the final outcome. So what was her true motivation, why did she pursue this quest at all costs? I can scarcely find an answer. Was it just for purse satisfaction of knowing the truth? Again, she did not talk to anyone about Mary being not guilty, not even her husband. No one. The last few pages of the novel compromise of Janet quietly contemplating everything she learned, and the only insight provided to the reason for this entire affair was this: “But now, at least, Janet had her answer, and perhaps greater wisdom than before. Tonight she would sleep undisturbed by bloody dreams.”* These are the last to sentences. Still, I don’t understand – what did this give her? She gained absolutely nothing, she can’t stand up for the deceased queen or anything like that, cannot even make her opinion public, her marriage might be ruined, and she only satisfied her curiosity. But why?

(now I feel like Janet in one of those disputes with her husband, quoted in the previous post)

Of course, the narrative continues to be split between the present and past as Janet finds still more people who can tell her the story (chronology of course perfectly chronological), but the focus on Janet and her struggles becomes stronger. She will not quit, and after reading the letter, she again directly disobeys her husband (who already clearly told her not to say one more word before they leave Edinburgh, or he would take measures) and goes to visit Cuthbert Ramsy (who knew someone who was in the conspiracy to murder the king), followed by Beth McCaig (who was there when Mary was abducted by Bothwell). The husband is obviously none too happy with this, and another fight ensues, this time ending with Janet getting slapped. The quarrel oddly resembles the previous one:
“’No! Be silent! Say nothing more. (...)’
‘We must leave on the morrow. Sir Richard-‘
‘I will decide when we will leave.’
‘Henry-‘
‘I said, keep silent, wife!’
‘Richard-‘
‘Silent!’
‘But-‘
He slapped her face. Hard.“**

Contrary to the review that I read, however, it doesn’t seem that the marriage is “broken beyond repair”. The situation between the two is tense and dramatic; Janet takes her husband’s words to heart and refuses to talk to him for an extensive period of time. By the very end, though, there is a “glimmer of hope”, if you will. Another theatrical conversation is had, this time with deep lines, like so: “‘There is always a choice.’ ‘Not-‘ ‘Always. There is always a choice’”; “ ‘You were my friend. (...) My friend. But no longer.’; “ ‘I cannot abide what you became in my eyes’”. All the above, naturally, in regard to Henry hitting Janet, after the two had such a wonderful relationship. Now for the glimmer of hope: “He sighed. ‘I apologize,’ he said, and sounded as if he meant it. ‘I value your regard, and am sorry I’ve lost it. What must I do to regain it?’ ‘Another eighteen years without raising your hand to me might have its effect.’ (...) ‘I’m saying that I will do my best not to give you sufficient reason to resort to violence if you will promise to make better choices in the future.’ (...) He kissed her, and she hoped all would be well.”***

Oh. How wonderful.

Never mind that Janet never apologizes for almost getting the two of them arrested.

I feel as though all that drama is trying to make some point (theme) about partnership, trust, freedom, or gender roles in both 16th century and today’s society, but I can’t quite find it.

Anyway, I must say that I am glad to be finished with the reading. I would love to have loved this book, or even somewhat enjoyed it, but, unfortunately, that’s not exactly the case. I would love to be able to say I learned a lot and gained insight into the particular historical period, but the way in which it was told was very confusing to someone without solid background knowledge. Of course, I know more about Queen Mary than I did before, but not enough to, say, engage in a conversation with someone about her, for fear of embarrassing myself.

The voice, unfortunately, was quite dull, and the way of narration not very lively or able to hold the reader’s interest (well, at least mine). If only there was more about Queen Mary and the people surrounding her – not dry facts, but some opinions, emotions, depth and interpretation of characters! I understand that this book was supposed to be as historically accurate as possible, but it is meant to be fiction; if readers wanted all the facts, they could look in plentiful and extensive works of nonfiction – readers deciding to pick up historical fiction most likely wants to understand the historical figures, see their real human side, see what drove and motivated them; they want to be able to relate to the figures, understand how they felt, see them as true, vivid individuals. Unfortunately, the only person who is made more “multi-dimensional” in this book is Janet, whose motives are still unclear. Again, I wish this book was narrated in a more interesting way, with each of the characters telling the story having their own individual, distinctive voice – so 1st person rather that 3rd. I wish there was more character development, more layers, a deeper meaning, a theme, or at least a colorful and engaging retelling of history.

Well, one thing is vivid – all the wonderfully detailed descriptions of torture and executions. This last part includes a thorough retelling (tone bordering on fascination) of the execution of those responsible for assassinating Darnley – they were “partially hanged”, followed by being cut apart and having their guts literally cooked or fried, don’t remember which, while still conscious. The killing of Queen Mary
is naturally also included (the axeman had to swing three times in order to severe the neck). It does get at times quite... intense.

I’m also glad this is the last post, because as much as I enjoy writing a blog, there’s no telling how long the posts would eventually become if there was more of them. As you’ve probably noticed, each so far has been longer than the last; this is because I wrote a lot for the first post, before even beginning the reading, because that’s how I am when allowed to write just anything, my own opinion, without a required format. For the second post, after reading the first five chapters, I, of course, had to make it longer – since I did the actual reading, I should have been able to write far more about the book than before even opening it. After that, it just became a matter of not writing less, as to not regress... So there. Actually, I think this post is shorter than the previous; again, I feel guilty about this, because should writing about the whole book when finished with reading not take longer than talking only about five chapters? Oh, well.

So, A Question of Guilt – not my type of book, but that doesn’t mean others wouldn’t enjoy it. I’m hesitant to recommend it, but if you’re someone really interested in Queen Mary and have read many other books on the subject, sure, read it. Will I ever read it again? No. However, since I love to read and occasionally enjoy historical fiction as well, I might try to find a historical fiction novel about the same subject matter, but written in a way more suitable for me, then compare the two. I’m sure Mary was a very fascinating and multi-faceted person, and many interesting works of fiction, many interpretations, can be created.

*p.307
**p.257
***p.305

„Shut up, Janet!”

So, in fact, the very thing I predicted has come true – how unlikely was that? Janet, with her unending questioning, despite being faced with the prospect of imprisonment, pushed her good-natured husband to the edge. Of course. Even after promising countless times to keep her mouth shut, she cannot, and she seems to do it intentionally, with purpose. So, a mere six pages after finishing the conversation with Lesslyn, she’s at it again: “The following evening they attended with Anne and Ramsay a supper party in the Canongate. It was delightful to see old friends, to catch up with what had been going on in Scotland the past several years. Then, after the meal as the table was being deserted and the final course served in a more intimate room, Janet [of course] asked her hostess how she felt about the execution of Queen Mary.” * But it only gets better – this is what she has to say to her husband afterwards: “I couldn’t help the direction the conversation took.” ** No comment there. The conversation that ensues at the supper party is lengthy and by no means lukewarm; and Janet finds, yet again, another person (no, not a servant this time) to narrate the story to her. It’s Roger Turney, a man who used to be watch captain at the time of Lord Darnley’s murder, and who interrogated French Paris, the queen’s page (torturing him by screwing his hands to a table – another descriptive description). As Roger begins telling his story, we are taken back in time not once, but twice – once to Roger’s memory of the night, second time – to the page’s memory of events leading up to the murder. Of course, both are narrated in 3rd person, in the same voice. However, this is only to confuse the reader, as we are later to find out that despite the seemingly objective tone, the page did not tell the truth. Once his story – about the conspiracy and his involvement, as well as the queen’s – is over, the company at the party continues to discuss it, and Henry (the husband) is quite unsuccessful in giving his wife hints to drop the subject. In fact, he himself, through clenched teeth, gives his thoughts as to the whole matter.

Regardless. The character development is, well, developing as expected – Janet is vexing her husband, questioning her position, the queen’s guilt, the structure of society. She is no longer contended with quietly assisting her husband, having the quiet satisfaction of non-admitted – by either side - superior intelligence, so what occurs is mostly conversations that lead to nowhere.

“’A woman is not made to rule men. ‘Tis unnatural.’ (...) ‘Why?’ ‘Why what?’ ‘Why is it unnatural? For instance, why is your word worth so much more than mine?’ He smiled. ‘Because I’m a man, my love. It’s that simple.’ (...) ‘But why?’ (...) ‘But why? And...’ (...) A long scream tried to rise, and she wanted to shout, Why? You haven’t told me why they wouldn’t follow her! But she swallowed it.” ***

And so on. Of course, this comes to a dramatic argument (Janet’s Scottish nature will not allow her to back down) that marks the beginning of... the end? I’d love to say that there are several options and predictions – Janet solves mystery, husband is glad, everything goes back to being perfect; or Janet completely ruins the good relationship she had, husband turn into tyrant – but unfortunately I just read a review that gave away the ending, and I know that their marriage will come to a point most likely beyond repair, all because of her curiosity and “quest for the truth” (though there is nothing for her to gain through this, only to lose). But more about that – the review, that is – in a minute.

Below, a very shortened version of the argument; yes, I’m going to include a lot of quotes now, because the narrative focuses on the somewhat more emotional and relatable present than dry past, so I’m more in my element:

“’Regardless, Janet, you will stop talking on the subject. Now.’ ‘She was –‘ ‘I said now, Janet!’ ‘Henry –‘ ‘Stop!’ ‘But Henry –‘ ‘Shut up, Janet! (...) We’ll have no more talk about this. Ever. You will obey me on this, or I will take measures.’ ‘Henry-‘ (...) ‘You’ve never given me reason to strike you, wife, but I vow this is close to it. You will stop your questioning, and keep silent on the subject of Queen Mary.’ (...) ‘Henry...’ ‘Shhh. (...) No talking.’” ****

However, I don’t think even this will be enough to stop her from questioning every passerby and loudly stating her opinion – and so the situation will only get worse. I just have to ask myself – why? Why does she keep pursuing this at all costs? The only argument she gives is that she can see the fabric of things. What does she hope to accomplish by this? She doesn’t seem to believe that events that happened 20 years prior can do her any harm – they belong to the past. So why is she so focused on them – she can’t change anything! Is it just a logic puzzle now? I don’t know.

Anyway, she currently isn’t talking to anyone, but her distant cousin visited, warning of possible consequences for her curiosity (word of the discussion at the party traveled really fast, even she was able to see this) but I still don’t think she appreciates the gravity of her actions. Well, despite the stern words, the cousin also brought something that will enable Janet to continue her quest – papers (which he supposedly has neither written nor read) about the plot to assassinate the king, which she’s currently reading (and so the narrative again shifts to 1566).

So - I actually found a review for this book AND the author’s (Julianne Lee’s) comments!
Here is the website: http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/12/19/review-a-question-of-guilt-by-julianne-lee/
Most of the points made by the reviewer – Jayne – I would totally sign my name under, with both hands. For example: “I wanted to like this book far more than I ultimately did.” She goes on to explain her view of Janet – she starts as a strong character, “an intelligent woman, who has a good marriage to a man she respects and who works in quiet partnership with him in his business since he respects her as well,” but her quest for the truth brings up questions as to her intelligence and common sense: “We’re told Janet is the politically astute member of this marriage yet she’s unbelievably naive at times as to the political consequences of her questions and the fact that even though the supposed murder was 20 years ago, there are a lot of powerful people who still wouldn’t want questions asked nor their potential involvement uncovered.(...) The fact that Mary is already dead when Janet starts her questioning removes any urgency from Janet’s actions. It’s only her own curiosity that she’s trying to appease and when faced with the possible negative consequences to herself, Henry and their livelihood, why does she persist? Yet another reason I question her intelligence.” I also couldn’t agree more as to the actual narrative: “As the book progressed, it was amazing to me that Janet found someone in the position to give her the details of the next phase of Mary’s life just when she needed it. Plus Scottish Janet’s speech was mainly English with an occasional brogue word thrown in when you remembered she’s supposed to be from Scotland. Indeed even when the mostly Scottish cast of characters are relaying their stories to Janet, while they may speak a little bit in brogue, most of the narrative is in flawless English. I might not care for much brogue in books, but if you’re going to use some, then it makes sense to carry that through all of a character’s speech. (...)The fact that so much of the tale is told in past tense, and the way the book is set up I know there’s no other way, removes us from the action and slows things down. It’s huge chunks of telling instead of showing and it got boring."

Finally, a “creative element”, so to say – two Glogs inspired by the “past” and “present” narration.


*p.147
** p.172
***p.145-146
****p.175

„Lesslyn wished the king would fall off his horse and onto his head.”

Déjà vu.

The truth-uncovering part of the story has progressed greatly. Janet is no longer in Fotheringhay, she is now in Edinburgh, and no longer listening to Margaret (Mary’s servant), but to Lessyn (Mary’s other servant). Curiously, the two servants’ narratives (if they can be called that, as they are both told in 3rd person) are so similar, that I keep forgetting Janet is talking to a different person. It’s not even the style of narration, necessarily, because, as already stated abundantly many times, the whole of the novel is in 3rd person, so there’s no need to alter the voice (except in dialogue). Either way, the stories don’t reveal anything at all about the people telling them, emotions, opinions, etc. (other than the laconic “she was scared”). There is no bias depending on the person, no personal take; the stories could have been told by absolutely anyone. Still the same format: chapters alternating between he “present” and the “past”.

The “past” is still narrated dryly, summarizing Mary’s life in a more or less straightforward way. I’m greatly relieved that there seem to be fewer characters, and the new ones are introduced more properly. The pace of the story has either decreased, or just focuses on important events, but the storyline is now much easier to follow. That, and the retold story is beginning to point toward what – as is already obvious – will be the final truth Janet uncovers, the innocence of Mary and unjustness of her execution. Namely, the reader learns of circumstances of Mary’s marriage to Lord Darnley, and his plan to assassinate her to gain the throne. The plan fails, of course, but Mary’s secretary, David Riccio, is slaughtered on the spot, as “red drops flew, spraying the assassins and covering everyone nearby”*. Again, a clear fascination with scenes of blood and gore.

I will not summarize the details of Mary’s biography, as they are known through history, and, the story being as confusing as it is, I would be afraid of mixing something up. Instead, I will spare my keyboard and point you towards a far more reliable source, where you can read ad nauseum as well as to your heart’s content about the tragic queen.

So, while the "past" is faithful to the time period, the "present" consists of Janet obsessively discussing Mary with everyone she encounters, despite being warned - while still at Fotheringhay - by a courtier with cruelly blue eyes to stop questioning Queen Elizabeth’s decision, or the consequences could be quite unpleasant. Her husband also tries to pour reason into her head, as he has no intention of getting arrested, but Janet will not listen, as she alone, as a woman, could see “the thin spots where the fabric [of the world] was weak and things didn’t make sense”**. After all, “Janet knew better”***!
And so it goes something like this:
-Janet, please stop asking questions about Mary, it’s unwise.
-Surely, husband.
***
-What! You innkeepers haven’t heard yet...?
***
-Janet, please stop asking questions about Mary, you’re going to get us arrested. We’re in Edinburgh now, and news travels fast to London.
-Oh, of course. I would never do anything to jeopardize our safety.
***
-So, about that Scottish queen...

And here, I have a sudden prophesy of the character development to follow! Janet’s husband will become mad and frustrated, and their relationship based on trust will shatter. He will become a tyrant in the family. Until the end, when Janet will miraculously solve the mystery, and all will be well again...

What really frustrates me is the one-dimensionality of the characters. I just wish that the book would reveal something about the personalities of the well-known historical figures, something that can’t be found in history books, or at least develop the main fictional characters really, really well. Unfortunately, Janet does little more than have nightmares of being beheaded and chat with friends or strangers in a manner that strikes me as completely contemporary, and therefore removed from the 16th-century time period. Indeed, I feel as though the author tries to make the characters artificially relatable to the modern reader, perhaps unfamiliar with or put off by old-fashioned conduct. On the other hand, the historical portion requires so much knowledge about the 16th century political scene, that I am no longer sure who the target audience is. On the whole, it is utterly confusing. What the author does is stay true to the traditional gender roles, but implant in the main characters a modern mentality. While human nature stays a constant, I’m sure you will agree with me in saying that mentality changes dramatically with changing times. Janet’s observations of the world and the relationship with her husband strike me at times as completely 20th- or 21st-century American. While Janet is, of course, obedient to her husband, they have an inside agreement of “society is, what it is, but we are both partners in this marriage”. Janet knows she is the more intelligent half, and so does he, though he never admits it. The interaction, the teasing, the mutual support, the “Janet, ‘tis one thing to speak this way to your husband, who loves and respects you, but there are others in the world who are not nearly so invested in your welfare”****... it’s hard to explain exactly, but the behavior of the fictional characters strikes a false note. That is not to say that there were no good, supportive relationships in those days, but the author simply tries to make the reader think, “amazing! They were not different from us at all!” rather than be able to relate to their nature while taking notice of the differences in society, relationships, etc.

I forgot to mention another major part of the “present” narrative: chuckling, which the characters do annoyingly often, undoubtedly for some imperative purpose.

Lastly, a hilarious 1971 costume drama about Mary, which is probably incomparably easier to follow than this book:






























*p.117
**p.86
***p.87
****p.4

“I can’t imagine what it must be like to be beheaded. A ghastly thing, surely.”

Well, perhaps first a quick overview of the first five chapters. The main (?) character, Janet de Ros, becomes interested in Queen Mary's execution and the truth behind the charges. With the permission, but not actual person of her husband (Henry, a wealthy merchant), she travels to Fotheringhay Castle, the place of Mary's imprisonment and death. Once there, she meets Margaret Galloway, Mary's servant-maid, still weeping after her mistress's death. Once they begin talking, Margaret tells Janet everything she knew about the queen, and the narrative shifts between year 1561/62 and 1587, the “present”, all told in 3rd person.

1561 is the year the recently widowed queen returns to Scotland, and is faced with many problems at her castle in Falkland: many candidates for a new husband are put forward, she fears kidnapping or murder, and, of course, is criticized for being Catholic (yet her brother and advisor is Protestant). Pierre Châtelard, a “silly Frenchman who imagined himself loved by Mary”*, is sentenced to beheading for making advances on the queen; however, people also say that “he wasn’t mad at all. That his objective was to discredit the queen and destabilize her reign. He was a Huguenot and would have considered his death to have been a worthy cause to topple a Catholic queen.”** At about the same time, the Earl of Huntly attempted to put his son, Sir Gordon John, on the throne by forced marriage. However, Sir Gordon John is also executed - for treason - after escaping from Sterling, where he was being held for assaulting James Ogilvie of Cardell, and gathers an army to follow the queen in what looks like an attempt to abduct her.

That is how far the plot has progressed as of now, and it was hard to figure out even as much. To fully understand what is going on, it is necessary to do background research. The author does not properly introduce every figure or explain their role: it is as though she expects the reader to be familiar with everyone connected to Queen Mary. Not only that, she switches between the character’s first names, last names, maiden names, titles, and roles constantly, and I, already having a problem remembering names (so it’s possible for me to even confuse Mary and Margaret - yes, I have done that), find it very difficult to follow. After finishing the first five chapters, I had absolutely no idea what I read. Only after going back to each chapter and looking people and events up did I finally understand what was going on. I don’t think a historical fiction novel should require so much extraneous knowledge – the reader should meet and get to understand the figures and time period directly from the book. Otherwise, what is the purpose?

In any case, what adds to the confusion is the way the story is actually told – rather dryly, summarizing events and giving no insight as to the characters’ thoughts and feelings, neither Mary’s nor Margaret’s. It appears as though the sole purpose of this is to brief the reader before the main part of the novel – with Janet as the main character – can begin. On the back cover, it did say that Janet travels from Fotheringhay Castle to Edinburgh to “pursue an investigation that could endanger her life”, and none of that has begun yet. Margaret’s story is altogether strange – not only is it written in third person, not first, it includes bits that seem very unlikely for her to say: for example, how much she adored the handsome Lord James (her husband is present as she is telling the story).

The style overall is a little disappointing as of now. I do appreciate using words like nae (“’Mary was nae so very Scottish, was she?’”***), naught, or aye in conversations, but everything else has no flow (nearly every sentence begins with the subject followed by a verb, save for a few sentence fragments and sentences beginning with a time clause or such). Perhaps if it was all dialogue? Then again, it is understood that everything said is a strong paraphrase of 16th-century English and Scottish. So why use such words anyway? I guess it’s like in English-language movie productions, where the actors playing, say, French people, speak English, but take care to throw in an occasional “bonjour” or “madame”, and, of course, speak with a fake British accent. The “beautiful voice” is somehow not showing itself, nor are there any developing themes or subtleties in the novel. The best, most detailed descriptions show a clear fascination with bloody, drawn-out executions (“blood poured from him, and had splattered the swordsman and scaffold to a distance of several feet”****... and this is very, very, very mild compared to other images). Well, maybe something will change when Margaret is done her story. Or maybe not.

Pictures: Fotheringhay church from www.r-l-p.co.uk/images%5C+fother.gif

and Fotheringhay Castle http://www.richardiii.net/fotheringhay.htm

*A Question of Guilt, 2008 Berkley Books edition, page 38
**therein, page 46
***therein, page 1
****therein, page 67

"The Best Reviews" Speak for Themselves

A Question of Guilt by Julianne Lee seemed like a reasonable and reasonably interesting book to read, as it is historical fiction (even says so right on the cover) and has as main characters people already well known from this year's history classes - Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots; and Elizabeth I, so it is very a' propos. However, at the time of purchase I did not seem to realize that the novel is actually supposed to be mystery, which has now considerably lowered my enthusiasm. Unfortunately, mysteries are rarely ambitious literature. Of course, maybe I have read too few to judge, but there has to be a reason why they have their own section (indeed, separate from "literature") in bookstores. Simply put, they serve a different purpose, and are written for a very specific audience - those who enjoy solving, well, mysteries. Therefore, they do not usually have a theme or deeper meaning - that would change their classification. Of course, A Question of Guilt is classified as historical fiction and was found in the regular literature section, so it must be more substantive, and I really shouldn't complain - yet.

The reason I'm worried about the mystery aspect is that a historical fiction book will likely not be too true to actual events and people if it has to serve such a purpose. Conspiracy theories. There's likely to be many. I chose a book specifically about what we learned in social studies to gain a better understanding of that time period and those specific historical figures. I hoped it would be more of a biography, colorized to make it more readable, more interesting, and a better complete picture (as, of course, not everything is known about nobles of 16th century England). In fact, I hoped it would be something more like Empress by Shan Sa, which I read last year and greatly enjoyed. Empress is everything a good (historical fiction) book should be - beautifully written and shows the author's interpretation of a historical figure: in this case Chinese Empress Wu Zei Tian. This is definitely what I value most highly in historical fiction works of all sorts - the artist's/author's/creator's interpretation and opinion of well-known figures. For that reason exactly I actually liked Sophia Coppola's Marie Antoinette - it's all interpretation, and was not meant to be an accurate historical account; no, its purpose was completely different. Here, it looks as though the purpose was to use famous names to create a puzzle for readers to solve.

Anyway, I have not yet properly introduced the book or defined the setting. The plot centers around the death of Mary, Queen of Scots, executed for plotting against her cousin, Elizabeth I. "But, " proclaims the cover, "not everyone is convinced that the scandalized Queen of Scots was guilty"! "Was Mary Stuart guilty of murder?" asks dramatically above. The murder in question is that of Mary's husband, Henry Darnley. The main character is Lady Janet de Ros, who is in fact not convinced that the queen was guilty, and she sets out to prove it, traveling from Fotheringhay Castle to Edinburgh ("determined to uncover the truth"). BUT WILL SHE?

I think she will.

On the cover, front side this time, I could not help but notice a modest quote: "Julianne Lee has a beautiful voice." (-The Best Reviews). I shall leave my personal opinion about books self-advertising themselves (even literature! Advertising in a capitalist society has reached even literature! So many writers must be turning over in their graves!) out for now, as it will be a far too long digression. In any case, skeptical as always, I decided to read the particular review, far too aware, from experience, that the entire quote could just as well be something along the lines of, "Usually, Julianne Lee has a beautiful voice; this book, however..." or, "It is hard to say that Julianne Lee has a beautiful voice..." I found the website with no problems, but imagine my surprise when I came across the summary along with a notification: "A Question of Guilt has not yet been reviewed. (Notify me via e-mail when this book is reviewed.)" Just as well. Only when writing this post did I get the idea of checking reviews for other books by Julianne Lee, and sure enough: "Julianne Lee has a beautiful voice and if KNIGHT TENEBRAE is any indication, she has a great future ahead of her." Yes. It's not even that book. And as for the beautiful voice, we shall certainly see.

Schedule for posts:
Chapters 1-5 - 03.06.09
Chapters 6-10 - 03.13.09
Chapters 11-15 - 03.20.09
Chapters 16-21 - 03.27.09 (which also happens to be my birthday)

*image from http://historical-fiction.com/books/questionofguilt.jpg