MNC Book Report: The World of Christopher Marlowe, David Riggs

I feel bad for having not read this entire book, but it’s no reflection on the quality; I just conceded defeat on getting through the entire thing in one day, and quit once I’d passed into the stuff that will be happening after Midnight Never Come is over.

The moronic thing is, I had to read this book to find out whether I needed to read this book. Less cryptically, I was trying to decide once and for all whether or not Kit Marlowe is going to be a character in MNC. There are vague reasons to put him in, and vague reasons not to, so I decided I’d read a biography of him and see if any historical felicities offered themselves for use. (A rather large amount of this novel is built on such foundations.) As it turns out, no such felicities were to be found, at least not ones that are compelling enough to shoehorn themselves into MNC. Marlowe was mostly involved with Burghley, not Walsingham, and his involvement with the other Walsingham (i.e. Sir Thomas, not Sir Francis) mostly grew up after the point at which I’m writing.

So Kit is likely to be Sir Gay-Atheist-Spy Not Appearing In This Book. Having said that, I do quite like Riggs’ work, and if I don’t end up reading the remainder, it’ll be because I’m getting bloody sick of the sixteenth century, not because I didn’t like the biography.

The big selling point of this book, to me, is that it grounds itself thoroughly in the historical and cultural context of the period. Which is making a virtue of necessity: Riggs points out in the prologue that we know precious few facts about Marlowe’s adult life, and the documents relating to him are either written by him in the voice of another (i.e. plays and poems and translations), or else written about him by other people; he left behind precisely one “first-person utterance” (as Riggs terms it). You can’t get at Marlowe directly; you have to reconstruct him from oblique evidence. To quote Riggs again, “All the evidence about his mutinous cast of mind sits at one remove from his own voice [. . .] He is an irretrievably textual being.”

Which means this book approaches the “gay atheist spy” trifecta by contextualizing the indirect evidence in more concrete facts about the period. Take the notion of Marlowe as a homosexual: Riggs denies that the term as we understand it today would fit Marlowe, since “homosexuality” as such did not exist in the Elizabethan mind. Sodomy was a behavior, not an identity, and was linked with other behaviors like heresy and treason. But given the social context in which Marlowe lived during a goodly chunk of his life; the way that his education promoted homosocial behavior, intimate male bonding, and sharing a bed with other men; and the kinds of classical texts to which he was exposed during that education, there are basically two options for his sexual behavior: either he was celibate, or he was a sodomite. There simply weren’t any women in his vicinity for him to do anything with. And sodomy certainly did happen.

As far as atheism goes, I was floored by the detailed discussion of Elizabethan higher education. Its purpose was to turn out good little leaders of the Church of England, but its design . . . well, let’s just say I’m surprised more of the men who went through it didn’t end up Catholics, Puritans, or atheists. Teaching young men to defend and attack arguments as a logical exercise, without any particular concern for the truth of the argument, nor any particular intent to arrive at a conclusion, seems a pretty good way to guarantee they end up casting a cynical eye on the things you then tell them to believe.

This book deserved better attention than I was able to give it, but I was conducting a high-speed reading with a specific purpose. In particular, I would like to come back to it some day when I’m more familiar with Marlowe’s writings: I started really skimming a ways into the detailed discussion of Tamburlaine, even though it was less a lit-crit analysis of the text and more a survey of how it fit into the political and theatrical scene of the 1580s. Then I read the Faustus chapter, skipped ahead to his death, and quit.

I don’t think Kit will be in this novel, except very, very peripherally. Which is a pity. But I’m not going to cram him in just for the sake of the Marlowe fangirls, even if I am one myself.

0 Responses to “MNC Book Report: The World of Christopher Marlowe, David Riggs”

  1. sapphohestia

    Perhaps it’s way too early to say anything (if you can at all), but is MNC a book that might have a sequel or do you envision it ending with all the possible future or past plot threads neatly tied up?

  2. fajrdrako

    A couple of years ago I became fascinated with Christopher Marlowe and read all the books I could find about him, both fact (including Riggs’ book) and fiction. I am, therefore, a little disappointed to hear he isn’t suitable for your use – shelve your new knowledge of him for further reference, don’t rule him out forever!

    The more closely I look at Elizabethan society, the more amazing and interesting it seems.

    • Marie Brennan

      Elizabethan history is awesome, don’t get me wrong. I’m just reaching the point where I’m looking forward to surfacing from it again.

      As for Kit, the little bugger has an entire short story devoted to him that I’m trying to sell, so I don’t feel too terribly bad about not giving him a role in the novel. And knowing what he’s like in my head, he may try to find ways to show up randomly in things that have nothing to do with him.

      • fajrdrako

        the little bugger has an entire short story devoted to him that I’m trying to sell

        Oh, good! I hope you do, and I hope I get to read it. Something to look forward to. Just between you and me, I thought a lot of the fiction I read about Marlowe was substandard, or at least not quite my interpretation of the man. I was most impressed with some of the plays about him. Has there been no major motion picture about him? If not, why not?

        Rhetorical question… mostly.

        • Marie Brennan

          No idea why he hasn’t gotten a movie — maybe because we have so little actual information about him, other than his death? — but it seems like every time there’s a book or film about the later Elizabethan period, he shows up long enough to get stabbed in the face.

          There’s a lot of flexibility in how one interprets Marlowe as a person. In my mind, he’s a smart-ass young man with more education and intelligence than is good for him, and insufficient respect for authority — which, paradoxically, doesn’t show up too much in my short story, due to its nature (the title is “The Deaths of Christopher Marlowe,” and yes, the plural is deliberate). But your mileage may vary, and could be just as right as mine.

          • fajrdrako

            No idea why he hasn’t gotten a movie — maybe because we have so little actual information about him, other than his death?

            Maybe, though a lack of information seldom stops the moviemakers! Usually they don’t use the facts even when they have them. You’d think they’d have a field day.

            he shows up long enough to get stabbed in the face

            “nothing in his life became him like the leaving of it”

            There’s a lot of flexibility in how one interprets Marlowe as a person.

            True of anyone, but more of him than most – partly because of the lack of information, partly becuase of conflicting testimony (and questionable motives) from those who knew him, and because it’s hard to interpret the man from his own writings.

            a smart-ass young man with more education and intelligence than is good for him, and insufficient respect for authority —

            I would agree with that, adding that he combined intellectual arrogance with an almost complete lack of caution. (No wonder I like him.)

            But your mileage may vary, and could be just as right as mine.

            Indeed. Fun to speculate and reinterpret, in any case.

          • Marie Brennan

            Maybe filmmakers need some starting point for them to subsequently ignore?

            Maybe the real problem is that, unless you dragoon Kit for some wacky spec-fic plot, your movie will be so embedded in Elizabethan-era political details that it will be hard to communicate to a viewer. You can film Elizabeth herself; she’s a widely familiar figure, with a couple of widely familiar conflicts associated. Kit Marlowe? Less so.

            If I were to do it . . . I’d base the movie around the writing and initial performance of Faustus (assuming a 1592 date for it, instead of 1588-1590), set him up as the golden boy of the English stage with Tamburlaine as his blockbuster work of a few years before, and really play up the atheist/political troublemaker angle. But it would be hard to make a satisfying ending out of him getting killed, even if you frame it as the political murder it probably was.

          • fajrdrako

            Maybe filmmakers need some starting point for them to subsequently ignore?

            I think they think Marlowe isn’t quite famous enough – not like Shakespear or Elizabeth I. Too bad.

            You do say interestingly thought-provoking things! I think if I were to make a movie about Marlowe, I’d make it about the success of Tamburlaine – maybe make a parallel between his life and that of his protragonist, and play up contrasts between his inner life and past, and his outer life and ambitions – and play up dramatic tensions in all of that. Definitely play up the atheist/political angle, in a short-term way that can have a satisfying short-term resolution.

            Conversely, a good movie could be made featuring his death by using an external viewpoint – making the viewpoint or protagonist of one of the killers, or his boyfriend, or a detective figure, or one of the spies.

Comments are closed.