„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